3 ms·

“duped” isn’t the right word here. People optimistically paid money for a thing that didn’t exist, in the hopes that it would. People bought into a kickstarter

by wepple 2y ago

“duped” isn’t the right word here. People optimistically paid money for a thing that didn’t exist, in the hopes that it would. People bought into a kickstarter and are entering the “find out” stage

chipdart 2y ago
> “duped” isn’t the right word here. "Duped" is an accurate description of how Elon Musk has been treating customers who bought a Tesla car with a HW3. He's been repeatedly promising those buyers that full self driving is just a software update away. Now apparently FSD is an impossibility and the company is rushing to hire drivers? In the very least it's bait-and-switch scam.
- andrewinardeer 2y ago
  Aren't the drivers being hired for their recently announced Robo-Taxi fleet and not private, personal cars like your comment suggests?
  - chipdart 2y ago
    > Aren't the drivers being hired for their recently announced Robo-Taxi fleet (...) The robo-taxi fleet is scheduled to be launched by 2026. This means Tesla, in spite of Elon Musk's wild claims, is not counting on providing anything remotely similar to FSD until at least 2026.
fzeroracer 2y ago
Kickstarter is a very different thing. You are paying for a product that does not exist yet in the hopes that it will. For Tesla, you paid for a product that exists and outright does not have what the manufacturer claims. That's false advertising.
- mgiannopoulos 2y ago
  The label on the Tesla site in the past has always been “FSD capable”. For years the FSD software was only available to a very small set of beta testers even if you had paid for it. People still have their money knowing they were not getting something at that monent. Not sure why we pretend they were fooled somehow.
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    You do realize that's still false advertising, right? People bought these cars because the advertising line was 'All Tesla cars have full self-driving hardware'. If you bought a computer that advertised itself as having a top of the line video card, but then as it turns out the company wouldn't let you use it unless you paid extra and then outright prevented you from using it entirely I assume you would say the company was trying to scam you. If they didn't want people to buy into FSD then they shouldn't have advertised and sold their cars with FSD.
    - mgiannopoulos 2y ago
      The didn’t “sell their cars with FSD”. FSD was always an optional software package, which was clearly mentioned as not available at the time. The grand majority of HW3 owners have not purchased FSD.
      - jantissler 2y ago
        Then the "optional software package" was/is the false advertising. And it is irrelevant how many people bought it.
    - Animats 2y ago
      > You do realize that's still false advertising, right? Tesla won that one in a case brought by Tesla investors.[1] Defendants argue that the Timeline Statements that FSDC technology “appear[ed] to be on track,” would be available “aspirationally by the end of the year,” and Tesla was “aiming to release [it] this year,” [..] were nonactionable statements of corporate puffery and optimism. […] Plaintiffs contend that the statements provided a “concrete description” of the state of Tesla’s technology in a way that misled investors. […]. These statements about Tesla’s aims and aspirations to develop Tesla’s technology by the end of the year and Musk’s confidence in the development timeline are too vague for an investor to rely on them. […] Thus, in addition to being protected under the PSLRA safe harbor, Statements (10, 11, and 18) are nonactionable puffery. Defendants also assert that several Safety Statements are corporate puffery. For example, statements that safety is “paramount” (FAC ¶ 325), Tesla cars are “absurdly safe” (id.), autopilot is “superhuman” (FAC ¶ 337), and “we want to get to as close to perfection as possible” (FAC¶363). Mot. at 19. Plaintiffs respond that “super” in “superhuman” is not puffery because it represents that ADT is safer than human and “absurdly safe” conveys greater-than-human safety. Opp. at 12. However, these vague statements of corporate optimism are not objectively verifiable. So Tesla admitted in the investor case that FSD is a lie. The legal argument relies on the "right to lie". However, Tesla is not doing as well in a case brought by unhappy FSD customers.[2] They potentially have stronger rights. That case is being stalled by Tesla, but it moves forward slowly anyway. It's essential to Musk's net worth that the FSD lie not collapse. Tesla's 94.64 P/E ratio assumes huge future growth. Now that everybody makes electric cars, just being an electric car maker isn't enough. Tesla is behind CATL and BYD and Samsung on battery technology and battery cost. Much of Tesla's overvaluation is being propped up only by Tesla's FSD hype. If the FSD bubble collapses, and P/E drops to a value appropriate to a car company (under 15, maybe lower), Musk stops being one of the richest people in the world. This explains the sucking up to Trump. [1] https://electrek.co/2024/10/02/elon-musk-celebrates-winning-lawsuit-tesla-self-driving-claims-embarrassing-defense/ https://electrek.co/2024/10/02/elon-musk-celebrates-winning-... [2] https://electrek.co/2024/06/10/teslas-dmv-self-driving-false-advertising-case-must-go-to-court-ca-judge-rules/ https://electrek.co/2024/06/10/teslas-dmv-self-driving-false...
llamaimperative 2y ago
Didn’t realize Teslas were sold on Kickstarter. Could you show us where?
- wepple 2y ago
  My reference to kickstarter was a metaphor, so I’m using kickstarter to describe a similar situation that occurred when people bought a capability that didn’t exist in the hopes that it would.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I would bet if you surveyed Kickstarter backers versus Tesla backers "How confident were you that this product would come to market as-described?", you'd see a huge difference. Is comparison to Kickstarter just a post-facto excuse for false advertising that anyone can use for any product, or does just Tesla/Musk get this benefit for some reason?
    - wepple 2y ago
      Musk gets special benefit because anyone paying attention knows that he’s 5 years late on everything. I’m fairly sure we were supposed to be living on Mars several years ago, by now. I agree it’s false advertising, and musk should be held accountable for that. But there has to be a little responsibility on consumers who pay for a thing that does exist and worse has actually never existed in the universe (camera-fed self driving)

by wepple 2y ago

chipdart 2y ago

> “duped” isn’t the right word here. "Duped" is an accurate description of how Elon Musk has been treating customers who bought a Tesla car with a HW3. He's been repeatedly promising those buyers that full self driving is just a software update away. Now apparently FSD is an impossibility and the company is rushing to hire drivers? In the very least it's bait-and-switch scam.

andrewinardeer 2y ago
Aren't the drivers being hired for their recently announced Robo-Taxi fleet and not private, personal cars like your comment suggests?
- chipdart 2y ago
  > Aren't the drivers being hired for their recently announced Robo-Taxi fleet (...) The robo-taxi fleet is scheduled to be launched by 2026. This means Tesla, in spite of Elon Musk's wild claims, is not counting on providing anything remotely similar to FSD until at least 2026.

fzeroracer 2y ago

Kickstarter is a very different thing. You are paying for a product that does not exist yet in the hopes that it will. For Tesla, you paid for a product that exists and outright does not have what the manufacturer claims. That's false advertising.

mgiannopoulos 2y ago
The label on the Tesla site in the past has always been “FSD capable”. For years the FSD software was only available to a very small set of beta testers even if you had paid for it. People still have their money knowing they were not getting something at that monent. Not sure why we pretend they were fooled somehow.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  You do realize that's still false advertising, right? People bought these cars because the advertising line was 'All Tesla cars have full self-driving hardware'. If you bought a computer that advertised itself as having a top of the line video card, but then as it turns out the company wouldn't let you use it unless you paid extra and then outright prevented you from using it entirely I assume you would say the company was trying to scam you. If they didn't want people to buy into FSD then they shouldn't have advertised and sold their cars with FSD.
  - mgiannopoulos 2y ago
    The didn’t “sell their cars with FSD”. FSD was always an optional software package, which was clearly mentioned as not available at the time. The grand majority of HW3 owners have not purchased FSD.
    - jantissler 2y ago
      Then the "optional software package" was/is the false advertising. And it is irrelevant how many people bought it.
  - Animats 2y ago
    > You do realize that's still false advertising, right? Tesla won that one in a case brought by Tesla investors.[1] Defendants argue that the Timeline Statements that FSDC technology “appear[ed] to be on track,” would be available “aspirationally by the end of the year,” and Tesla was “aiming to release [it] this year,” [..] were nonactionable statements of corporate puffery and optimism. […] Plaintiffs contend that the statements provided a “concrete description” of the state of Tesla’s technology in a way that misled investors. […]. These statements about Tesla’s aims and aspirations to develop Tesla’s technology by the end of the year and Musk’s confidence in the development timeline are too vague for an investor to rely on them. […] Thus, in addition to being protected under the PSLRA safe harbor, Statements (10, 11, and 18) are nonactionable puffery. Defendants also assert that several Safety Statements are corporate puffery. For example, statements that safety is “paramount” (FAC ¶ 325), Tesla cars are “absurdly safe” (id.), autopilot is “superhuman” (FAC ¶ 337), and “we want to get to as close to perfection as possible” (FAC¶363). Mot. at 19. Plaintiffs respond that “super” in “superhuman” is not puffery because it represents that ADT is safer than human and “absurdly safe” conveys greater-than-human safety. Opp. at 12. However, these vague statements of corporate optimism are not objectively verifiable. So Tesla admitted in the investor case that FSD is a lie. The legal argument relies on the "right to lie". However, Tesla is not doing as well in a case brought by unhappy FSD customers.[2] They potentially have stronger rights. That case is being stalled by Tesla, but it moves forward slowly anyway. It's essential to Musk's net worth that the FSD lie not collapse. Tesla's 94.64 P/E ratio assumes huge future growth. Now that everybody makes electric cars, just being an electric car maker isn't enough. Tesla is behind CATL and BYD and Samsung on battery technology and battery cost. Much of Tesla's overvaluation is being propped up only by Tesla's FSD hype. If the FSD bubble collapses, and P/E drops to a value appropriate to a car company (under 15, maybe lower), Musk stops being one of the richest people in the world. This explains the sucking up to Trump. [1] https://electrek.co/2024/10/02/elon-musk-celebrates-winning-lawsuit-tesla-self-driving-claims-embarrassing-defense/ https://electrek.co/2024/10/02/elon-musk-celebrates-winning-... [2] https://electrek.co/2024/06/10/teslas-dmv-self-driving-false-advertising-case-must-go-to-court-ca-judge-rules/ https://electrek.co/2024/06/10/teslas-dmv-self-driving-false...

llamaimperative 2y ago

Didn’t realize Teslas were sold on Kickstarter. Could you show us where?

wepple 2y ago
My reference to kickstarter was a metaphor, so I’m using kickstarter to describe a similar situation that occurred when people bought a capability that didn’t exist in the hopes that it would.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I would bet if you surveyed Kickstarter backers versus Tesla backers "How confident were you that this product would come to market as-described?", you'd see a huge difference. Is comparison to Kickstarter just a post-facto excuse for false advertising that anyone can use for any product, or does just Tesla/Musk get this benefit for some reason?
  - wepple 2y ago
    Musk gets special benefit because anyone paying attention knows that he’s 5 years late on everything. I’m fairly sure we were supposed to be living on Mars several years ago, by now. I agree it’s false advertising, and musk should be held accountable for that. But there has to be a little responsibility on consumers who pay for a thing that does exist and worse has actually never existed in the universe (camera-fed self driving)