4 ms·
I don’t know enough about the field to have a strong opinion, but it might be less carbon intensive to run the one production line. I appreciate that it rankle
by benreesman 3y ago
I don’t know enough about the field to have a strong opinion, but it might be less carbon intensive to run the one production line.
I appreciate that it rankles the hacker in most (myself included) when Intel blows a fuse or Tesla flashes firmware to price discriminate.
But the math on whether more or less EVs get sold because the high-end subsidizes the mid-range, how that affects consumers and the environment, where this all sits legally?
Almost certainly complicated AF. It seems a bit hasty to consider just one data point out of that insane Pareto topology and call it good.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Shawnj2 3y agoSure but they shouldn’t make 1 car and software lock half the features, sure economically it works out but practically it’s wasteful to the consumer. FSD is one thing if you have a software product not in the base car you are selling for a reasonable price but selling the only software that can unlock existing hardware in your car is atrocious. Out of principle I’m not buying a car like that unless I can jailbreak it
- sheepshear 3y agoEvery electric car on the road has some amount of software-locked range. Tesla is just passing some choice along to you. The price must be higher for the harder-wearing configuration because the warranty is the same. It's good for cost-sensitive short-range drivers because they're no longer subsidizing warranties for long-range drivers. You'll have to do the math for yourself to see if it's good for you.
- Shawnj2 3y agoThat may be true for software locked range but that’s not true for software locked heated seats or other similar features
- sheepshear 3y agoI agree, I wasn't disputing that.