5 ms·

It's relatively clear to me... Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a softwar

It's relatively clear to me... Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter. BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. Something like self-driving, where there might be an active internet connection and server costs - I'm ok with a recurring subscription. Examples... BMW tried to charge a subscription to use Apple CarPlay. This should be a one-time fee (baked into model price, or a one-time software switch). Same for Toyota (I think) who tried to make remote-unlock a subscription (this was basic key fob unlock - no internet hosting/app maintenance involved). Also crappy move from them. Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me. If you want the feature, pay for it. At minimum, I'd expect Tesla (or whoever) to void warranties on cars with these hacks applied (within the bounds of Magnuson-Moss Act in the US).

Cagrosso 3y ago
If the feature is built in to the car from the factory and disabled via software so they can charge more then you are already paying for the parts and lugging around the added weight in the vehicle thus costing you more in fuel. Software locking a hardware feature that is integrated is an awful practice. Telsa chose to do this presumably to only have to buy a single seat configuration and streamline installs so they could hit production quotas.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Right. Instead of manufacturing a 50, 80, and 100 kWh battery pack, and having to go through the whole process of getting certifications and everything for each size, they just make 100 kWh packs all day long, and then software limit them to 50. Which means, in the case of an emergency, the company can bestow extra range on lower-end vehicles, which they did for Hurricane Irma. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-irma-update-florida-extend-range-model-s-x-60-60d https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-...
  - pkaye 3y ago
    Does that imply there is not much of a manufacturing cost difference between 50 kWH and 100 kWH battery pack?
    - doxick 3y ago
      Great reply! It's either so close that you're overpaying for the 100kWH, or it's not very close in which case you're overpaying for the 50kWH. Either way: the 50kWH is hit: carrying dead weight on a smaller capacity. A not insignificant weight.
    - acer589 3y ago
      No, they were selling 75 kWh packs as 60. The gap was nowhere near 50 -> 100.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  For many features it makes sense. Heated seats for example have trivial hardware costs. It's basically a couple resistive wires, plus the necessary controls. The process costs of manufacturing some cars with and some without heated seats likely far exceed the cost of the heated seats themselves, so it's cheaper to just put them in every car. But heated seats are a great upselling opportunity, people are willing to pay $200-400 for them, more if you bundle them in a package with other stuff the customer doesn't actually need but that creates a vague sense of value. The compromise that minimizes production costs and still allows that upsell is to put them in every car and disable them via software.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    Just because it is easier and cheaper for you to do something doesn't make it right to do it.
  - kstrauser 3y ago
    I'd be hard pressed to imagine a greater waste of resources than to include all possible hardware in all possible sold goods, with only some of the features enabled. That maximizes waste with only a portion of buyers able to use those things.
  - myself248 3y ago
    Back in the day we used to just call those "standard features" and every car had them.
    - robryan 3y ago
      They could do that but would have to raise the base price. These addon features allows a cheaper entry point and price discrimination for those who are willing to pay more. Whether it ends up being wasteful is complicated, there are would be operating effeciencies in putting the same hardware into every car.
      - abduhl 3y ago
        >> They could do that but would have to raise the base price. Why? The component is already in every vehicle. This is not like binning for chips: every vehicle must (and does) have the capability because it’s unknown whether a consumer will pay for the upgrade. If anything, the price should go down because software costs have decreased by removing the software locks.
kbos87 3y ago
Ongoing costs aside, it’s important to also recognize that there may have been massive up-front costs to develop something like self-driving before it generates revenue, which the manufacturer should have the right to recoup/monetize. If they choose to do that through a subscription, that feels like it’s within their right.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  As the end user, I couldn’t care less about a manufacturer’s costs. That’s a them problem, not a me problem. I understand your point. I just don’t care. They sold me a thing, and now it’s mine.
  - kbos87 3y ago
    That strikes me as a pretty dissonant argument on HN. If we play that out, no software creator would have a defensible way to monetize what they invested time, energy and money to create. Enforceable laws protecting IP are the difference between entire sectors of the economy existing vs. not being worth the effort.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I don't think that's true at all, or what the person you're replying to is getting at. If you sell me a bunch of hardware, that hardware is now mine, and I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If you sell that hardware with a bunch of software on it, I should again be able to do anything I want with that software. That doesn't entitle me to updates of that software, or ongoing use of the company's cloud infrastructure. It's fine to require payment for that. IP laws just aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should be able to legally "pirate" the software running on our devices.
      - kstrauser 3y ago
        You're exactly right.
      - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xkcd1963 3y ago
Heated seats is essentially a bool somewhere in the code implemented as artificial limitation. Self-Driving is much more complex and abides much more as an argument to your view.
- CapsAdmin 3y ago
  But who gets to decide? Usually the more uneducated a person is of some particular product, the more they think a feature is "just a bool somewhere". (personally I'm very much on the side of giving people control of their own software and hardware)
  - kelnos 3y ago
    If the hardware for the feature is present and hooked up, and the software (if any) that's needed to run it is installed, then it is indeed "just a bool somewhere". If the hardware requires non-trivial software to enable the feature, and that software is not provided with the device, then it's fair to require additional payment to buy that software. But also no one should be able to prevent a third party from reverse engineering the hardware and writing their own software for it. I think "who gets to decide?" is a somewhat silly question. It's the same answer we'd accept for just about any situation: someone reasonably well-versed in the technology.
- johannes1234321 3y ago
  Even if it is a bool there is probably an extra factor: Liability in case there is an fire or other incident. Tesla probably on its side reduces it's cost as well, by only insuring (be it by having cash reserves or actual insurance) it's liability only for the cases where it is enabled. It's of course hard to prove as cause, but if there is a liability case it might become "interesting" Edit: Also relevant: even without incident, the disabled heated chairs may be broken. By not being enabled Tesla doesn't have to repair them under warranty as the aren't a feature. Thus they maybe can reduce quality in the production
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    Isn't it rediculous to assume a seat-heating feature could cause a fire? I would assume there are even hardware limitations in place to prevent heating that would otherwise cause damage. I imagine the situation at court "you implemented combustive seat-heating for this model?¿"
m463 3y ago
> Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me. I disagree, pretty strongly. There is a line. They sold you something in its entirety, including the seats with wires. I would agree with you if you had to download the control software from their servers. I would agree with you if you if the upgrade provided you physical wires to install, even if you had to install them. Related I think it would be fine to purchase the control software and/or heating wires from a third party that was not tesla and install it in your tesla car.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  How do you feel about software that has various 'pro' features that cost more but are unlocked with a key and don't require a separate download?
  - m463 3y ago
    I think the burden is on the software developer to figure out what they need to do legally. It might be inconvenient for them to require a separate download, and they'd have to make peace with it if they deliver the functionality in its entirety to you during the first sale.
  - djgigabits 3y ago
    If you're purchasing the "not pro" version for a much cheaper cost, and it is a functional program (basic things like Save not locked behind the paywall), having different tiers of paid features is fine. You were able to pick to have the lower tier features, even if you end up downloading the same exact files. When it comes to hardware, if they've already installed the feature, they've already factored the cost of it into the purchase price. Your out the door cost includes that heated seat hardware, even if it's not a line item. And you don't have the option to have it removed for a discount (or get a lower car package). You only have the option to pay to use the thing that's already in your car or not to pay to use it.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Maybe it's not quite theft, but like I said, at minimum, I'd expect Tesla to refuse warranty repairs (hack the software to open Plaid mode, lose your drivetrain coverage, etc). Trying to think about it in terms of "normal" cars - unlocking Plaid is similar to reprogramming the ECU on an ICE to deliver more power.
runeks 3y ago
> BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. What if it's a sort of payment plan? E.g. if we assume heated seats costs $1000 and the consumer wants to pay for this monthly over ten years then it'll be 1000/12/10=$8.33 plus interest per month. Of course, this should mean that once repaid, it's the property of the owner and therefore transferred at resale.

Cagrosso 3y ago

If the feature is built in to the car from the factory and disabled via software so they can charge more then you are already paying for the parts and lugging around the added weight in the vehicle thus costing you more in fuel. Software locking a hardware feature that is integrated is an awful practice. Telsa chose to do this presumably to only have to buy a single seat configuration and streamline installs so they could hit production quotas.

fragmede 3y ago
Right. Instead of manufacturing a 50, 80, and 100 kWh battery pack, and having to go through the whole process of getting certifications and everything for each size, they just make 100 kWh packs all day long, and then software limit them to 50. Which means, in the case of an emergency, the company can bestow extra range on lower-end vehicles, which they did for Hurricane Irma. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-irma-update-florida-extend-range-model-s-x-60-60d https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-...
- pkaye 3y ago
  Does that imply there is not much of a manufacturing cost difference between 50 kWH and 100 kWH battery pack?
  - doxick 3y ago
    Great reply! It's either so close that you're overpaying for the 100kWH, or it's not very close in which case you're overpaying for the 50kWH. Either way: the 50kWH is hit: carrying dead weight on a smaller capacity. A not insignificant weight.
  - acer589 3y ago
    No, they were selling 75 kWh packs as 60. The gap was nowhere near 50 -> 100.
wongarsu 3y ago
For many features it makes sense. Heated seats for example have trivial hardware costs. It's basically a couple resistive wires, plus the necessary controls. The process costs of manufacturing some cars with and some without heated seats likely far exceed the cost of the heated seats themselves, so it's cheaper to just put them in every car. But heated seats are a great upselling opportunity, people are willing to pay $200-400 for them, more if you bundle them in a package with other stuff the customer doesn't actually need but that creates a vague sense of value. The compromise that minimizes production costs and still allows that upsell is to put them in every car and disable them via software.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  Just because it is easier and cheaper for you to do something doesn't make it right to do it.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  I'd be hard pressed to imagine a greater waste of resources than to include all possible hardware in all possible sold goods, with only some of the features enabled. That maximizes waste with only a portion of buyers able to use those things.
- myself248 3y ago
  Back in the day we used to just call those "standard features" and every car had them.
  - robryan 3y ago
    They could do that but would have to raise the base price. These addon features allows a cheaper entry point and price discrimination for those who are willing to pay more. Whether it ends up being wasteful is complicated, there are would be operating effeciencies in putting the same hardware into every car.
    - abduhl 3y ago
      >> They could do that but would have to raise the base price. Why? The component is already in every vehicle. This is not like binning for chips: every vehicle must (and does) have the capability because it’s unknown whether a consumer will pay for the upgrade. If anything, the price should go down because software costs have decreased by removing the software locks.

kbos87 3y ago

Ongoing costs aside, it’s important to also recognize that there may have been massive up-front costs to develop something like self-driving before it generates revenue, which the manufacturer should have the right to recoup/monetize. If they choose to do that through a subscription, that feels like it’s within their right.

kstrauser 3y ago
As the end user, I couldn’t care less about a manufacturer’s costs. That’s a them problem, not a me problem. I understand your point. I just don’t care. They sold me a thing, and now it’s mine.
- kbos87 3y ago
  That strikes me as a pretty dissonant argument on HN. If we play that out, no software creator would have a defensible way to monetize what they invested time, energy and money to create. Enforceable laws protecting IP are the difference between entire sectors of the economy existing vs. not being worth the effort.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I don't think that's true at all, or what the person you're replying to is getting at. If you sell me a bunch of hardware, that hardware is now mine, and I should be able to do whatever I want with it. If you sell that hardware with a bunch of software on it, I should again be able to do anything I want with that software. That doesn't entitle me to updates of that software, or ongoing use of the company's cloud infrastructure. It's fine to require payment for that. IP laws just aren't particularly relevant to the discussion at hand. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should be able to legally "pirate" the software running on our devices.
    - kstrauser 3y ago
      You're exactly right.
    - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

xkcd1963 3y ago

Heated seats is essentially a bool somewhere in the code implemented as artificial limitation. Self-Driving is much more complex and abides much more as an argument to your view.

CapsAdmin 3y ago
But who gets to decide? Usually the more uneducated a person is of some particular product, the more they think a feature is "just a bool somewhere". (personally I'm very much on the side of giving people control of their own software and hardware)
- kelnos 3y ago
  If the hardware for the feature is present and hooked up, and the software (if any) that's needed to run it is installed, then it is indeed "just a bool somewhere". If the hardware requires non-trivial software to enable the feature, and that software is not provided with the device, then it's fair to require additional payment to buy that software. But also no one should be able to prevent a third party from reverse engineering the hardware and writing their own software for it. I think "who gets to decide?" is a somewhat silly question. It's the same answer we'd accept for just about any situation: someone reasonably well-versed in the technology.
johannes1234321 3y ago
Even if it is a bool there is probably an extra factor: Liability in case there is an fire or other incident. Tesla probably on its side reduces it's cost as well, by only insuring (be it by having cash reserves or actual insurance) it's liability only for the cases where it is enabled. It's of course hard to prove as cause, but if there is a liability case it might become "interesting" Edit: Also relevant: even without incident, the disabled heated chairs may be broken. By not being enabled Tesla doesn't have to repair them under warranty as the aren't a feature. Thus they maybe can reduce quality in the production
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  Isn't it rediculous to assume a seat-heating feature could cause a fire? I would assume there are even hardware limitations in place to prevent heating that would otherwise cause damage. I imagine the situation at court "you implemented combustive seat-heating for this model?¿"

m463 3y ago

> Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me. I disagree, pretty strongly. There is a line. They sold you something in its entirety, including the seats with wires. I would agree with you if you had to download the control software from their servers. I would agree with you if you if the upgrade provided you physical wires to install, even if you had to install them. Related I think it would be fine to purchase the control software and/or heating wires from a third party that was not tesla and install it in your tesla car.

Eisenstein 3y ago
How do you feel about software that has various 'pro' features that cost more but are unlocked with a key and don't require a separate download?
- m463 3y ago
  I think the burden is on the software developer to figure out what they need to do legally. It might be inconvenient for them to require a separate download, and they'd have to make peace with it if they deliver the functionality in its entirety to you during the first sale.
- djgigabits 3y ago
  If you're purchasing the "not pro" version for a much cheaper cost, and it is a functional program (basic things like Save not locked behind the paywall), having different tiers of paid features is fine. You were able to pick to have the lower tier features, even if you end up downloading the same exact files. When it comes to hardware, if they've already installed the feature, they've already factored the cost of it into the purchase price. Your out the door cost includes that heated seat hardware, even if it's not a line item. And you don't have the option to have it removed for a discount (or get a lower car package). You only have the option to pay to use the thing that's already in your car or not to pay to use it.
alistairSH 3y ago
Maybe it's not quite theft, but like I said, at minimum, I'd expect Tesla to refuse warranty repairs (hack the software to open Plaid mode, lose your drivetrain coverage, etc). Trying to think about it in terms of "normal" cars - unlocking Plaid is similar to reprogramming the ECU on an ICE to deliver more power.

runeks 3y ago

> BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. What if it's a sort of payment plan? E.g. if we assume heated seats costs $1000 and the consumer wants to pay for this monthly over ten years then it'll be 1000/12/10=$8.33 plus interest per month. Of course, this should mean that once repaid, it's the property of the owner and therefore transferred at resale.