4 ms·

I wonder if Tesla is aware that such a provision likely would not stand up in court, and decided to put it in anyway, just to dissuade folks from attempting a s

I wonder if Tesla is aware that such a provision likely would not stand up in court, and decided to put it in anyway, just to dissuade folks from attempting a sale. The threatened ban on access to purchase future vehicles was probably also a problem.

ggm 2y ago
You buy the metal and the battery but you're renting the featureset and the upgrades of software. Its a licence to use world. They can ban you from chargers, they can ban you from unlocking features, they presumably can lock features remotely without your consent. (I would hope only when the car is motionless). I am unsure they can remote-engine-lock the car, but who knows? Certainly I have seen stories if you are out of SIM range and low 12v battery it's possible to wind up unable to enter the car, but lock/unlock processes don't have to be symmetric across car-user-cloud experience.
- nytesky 2y ago
  My current car is 15 years old. I dread a new car which is dependent on a windows live or iCloud account equivalent to unlock and operate. Can you still air gap new cars?
  - ggm 2y ago
    For high end cars, only if you can find the sim. A friend was rung while driving by BMW (or Mercedes, I forget which) and told to go see his mechanic for a timing issue they'd detected by remote engine monitoring and reporting. He didn't even know they had a 2G data stream from the car. I think he assumed it was done at the regular services from a diagnostic port upload. Trucks have had live engine monitoring since they became half-a-million dollar assets. I would be amazed if a serious trucking enterprise didn't ask about the feed buying these beasts. Do we still demand a driver tachometer paper exercise?
    - 15155 2y ago
      Finding it isn't hard (and only one person has to do it), but we're assuming it continues to operate without the SIM.
bravetraveler 2y ago
Certain Italian super-car creators really don't like aftermarket stuff. One of the two larger entities - if not both - will similarly blacklist. That seems fine. There's generally no lasting commitment between buyer/seller. The seller can be mad, paid, and free of claim/more annoyance. The buyer can enjoy what they bought and carry on elsewhere. It can make servicing/replacement parts needlessly difficult, but fine. Now, the blocking of the resale, I have trouble with that. It sounds like a lease with fewer steps. If I'm paying purchase money, I want purchase benefits. Autonomy. Heh. Not to dismiss leases: they allow for people to enjoy something nice for smaller/regular payments. Freeing up the larger chunk is valuable. The point is kind of fuzzy: one shouldn't be able to 'sell'/transfer their rights. This is like selling part of yourself. Where this meets practicality? Selling things carries the rights with it. I feel like choosing my belongings/who gets them/under what terms are all part of those. If I don't own it, be honest. It's a financial imposition after the sale is done, 'simple' as that. It can be argued. It shouldn't have to be IMO. Edit: Grandstanding now on my soap box - scalpers are the boogeyman to create a cartel Who's to say I didn't just give it to someone else for really, really bad terms? There may be implications RE: buyer selection/taxes. I'd consider it worthwhile to spite the former owners, Tesla.
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  Can't edit but some more thoughts. Maybe this appeal will help drive my point. Say you and a friend both want to trade. You have a Cybertruck, he wants it. Time, customization, or sentiment is a factor. Whatever. On offer? Something that would solve all of your newfound problems. Whatever it/they may be. He doesn't need it though; in fact, it's wasting space. Plus, he'll toss in a car good enough to not make a new issue for you, and a little money for the effort. Why does Tesla or anyone not in this otherwise legal transaction get to deny this? So that yet another unrelated party can buy a price-fixed commodity? We're several degrees detached from reason. Is it not greater to let this amplification factor/trade happen? The free market succeeded, woohoo. This resale limitation stuff is a weird wedge in the concept of autonomy/ownership in my opinion. Akin to regulatory capture. The manufacturer becomes the scalper.

ggm 2y ago

You buy the metal and the battery but you're renting the featureset and the upgrades of software. Its a licence to use world. They can ban you from chargers, they can ban you from unlocking features, they presumably can lock features remotely without your consent. (I would hope only when the car is motionless). I am unsure they can remote-engine-lock the car, but who knows? Certainly I have seen stories if you are out of SIM range and low 12v battery it's possible to wind up unable to enter the car, but lock/unlock processes don't have to be symmetric across car-user-cloud experience.

nytesky 2y ago
My current car is 15 years old. I dread a new car which is dependent on a windows live or iCloud account equivalent to unlock and operate. Can you still air gap new cars?
- ggm 2y ago
  For high end cars, only if you can find the sim. A friend was rung while driving by BMW (or Mercedes, I forget which) and told to go see his mechanic for a timing issue they'd detected by remote engine monitoring and reporting. He didn't even know they had a 2G data stream from the car. I think he assumed it was done at the regular services from a diagnostic port upload. Trucks have had live engine monitoring since they became half-a-million dollar assets. I would be amazed if a serious trucking enterprise didn't ask about the feed buying these beasts. Do we still demand a driver tachometer paper exercise?
  - 15155 2y ago
    Finding it isn't hard (and only one person has to do it), but we're assuming it continues to operate without the SIM.

bravetraveler 2y ago

Certain Italian super-car creators really don't like aftermarket stuff. One of the two larger entities - if not both - will similarly blacklist. That seems fine. There's generally no lasting commitment between buyer/seller. The seller can be mad, paid, and free of claim/more annoyance. The buyer can enjoy what they bought and carry on elsewhere. It can make servicing/replacement parts needlessly difficult, but fine. Now, the blocking of the resale, I have trouble with that. It sounds like a lease with fewer steps. If I'm paying purchase money, I want purchase benefits. Autonomy. Heh. Not to dismiss leases: they allow for people to enjoy something nice for smaller/regular payments. Freeing up the larger chunk is valuable. The point is kind of fuzzy: one shouldn't be able to 'sell'/transfer their rights. This is like selling part of yourself. Where this meets practicality? Selling things carries the rights with it. I feel like choosing my belongings/who gets them/under what terms are all part of those. If I don't own it, be honest. It's a financial imposition after the sale is done, 'simple' as that. It can be argued. It shouldn't have to be IMO. Edit: Grandstanding now on my soap box - scalpers are the boogeyman to create a cartel Who's to say I didn't just give it to someone else for really, really bad terms? There may be implications RE: buyer selection/taxes. I'd consider it worthwhile to spite the former owners, Tesla.

bravetraveler 2y ago
Can't edit but some more thoughts. Maybe this appeal will help drive my point. Say you and a friend both want to trade. You have a Cybertruck, he wants it. Time, customization, or sentiment is a factor. Whatever. On offer? Something that would solve all of your newfound problems. Whatever it/they may be. He doesn't need it though; in fact, it's wasting space. Plus, he'll toss in a car good enough to not make a new issue for you, and a little money for the effort. Why does Tesla or anyone not in this otherwise legal transaction get to deny this? So that yet another unrelated party can buy a price-fixed commodity? We're several degrees detached from reason. Is it not greater to let this amplification factor/trade happen? The free market succeeded, woohoo. This resale limitation stuff is a weird wedge in the concept of autonomy/ownership in my opinion. Akin to regulatory capture. The manufacturer becomes the scalper.