Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars • Hacker News Board

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#121

Post by ryandrake » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #107

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. Yes, but on the other hand it is best to view a car as a service, because this makes sure that the interests of the manufacturer (or service provider) are aligned with those of the user: no more "planned obsolescence"; and the manufacturer will plan ahead for recycling of materials because this is in their be…

A couple of points:

1. If I wanted DaaS (Driving As A Service) I'd hire a taxi or Uber. I own my car(s) because I don't want to be dependent upon some service provider if I need to get somewhere.

2. When I buy something, I am an _owner_ not a user.

3. Unnecessary dependence on phoning home to the mothership is a huge mis-alignment between the interests of customers and manufacturers. This is why the "Internet of Things" has so far been a disaster (and will continue to be a disaster). Really, it should never be acceptable for your thermostat or your smoke detectors or your refrigerator, or yes--your car, to require constant permission from the manufacturer in order to work.

EDIT:

3a. To me, there are acceptable and unacceptable reasons for such devices to request connections back to home base, but it should always be optional (i.e. the device should work as advertised without connectivity):

- To ask for permission to continue functioning: Unacceptable

- To enable remote-controllability of the device by the manufacturer: Unacceptable

- To harvest customer personal information to be sold or used for marketing purposes: Unacceptable

- To report behavioral or analytics data for the purpose of improving the product: Marginally acceptable

- To enable remote-accessibility or controllability of the device by its owner: Acceptable

- To integrate with valuable 1st or 3rd party services which cannot be provided entirely from the device: Acceptable

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#122

Post by vvanders » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

I don't think things are as dire as he makes it out:

1. Small amount of cars on the road so there's limited incentive for aftermarket parts.

2. People already do brakes/tires/suspension/etc. It's a car after all.

3. I wouldn't want to get near the powertrain. 425kw(~400V @ 1,000 Amps) will kill you if you touch something that you shouldn't.

I think it'll be a bigger issue once we see the Model 3 on the road.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#123

Post by icebraining » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #113

mikeash wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you say the batteries cannot be replaced? Swapping a battery literally takes five minutes. The cost of a new one is high, but will likely come down. As for why these cars exist, it's simple: they're awesome cars. They're powerful and quiet and have advanced technology. Never mind environmental concerns, not having to visit the gas station is just very convenient. Not emitting (local) pollution is a nice bonus,…

They can't be replaced because they are extremely expensive, and no mechanic is going to touch these thing without manuals and tools.

Not only can they be replaced, as Tesla already has a station in the SF to LA route where a machine replaces the whole battery in 90 seconds. It it expensive to keep the new one, though.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#124

Post by Spooky23 » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #118

Spooky23 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't be replaced because they are extremely expensive, and no mechanic is going to touch these thing without manuals and tools.

Expensive is different from "can't," and there's definitely one company whose mechanics can replace the battery.

It's all about ROI. You can make a case for almost any conventional repair, save a transmission or engine overhaul.

When a battery replacement exceeds the value of the vehicle, and the one source of mechanics is incentivized to sell a new car, the economics will never make sense.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#125

Post by frik » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #20

qume wrote: post #13

This is a good place to share this with geeks who may not be into cars: I drive a 1994 Mercedes (W124 chassis). One of the most reliable cars ever made. Simple to repair yourself. A TON of info available online for anything you could want to fix. Pretty much (probably 100%) of all parts on the car are available super cheap as chinese replacements because the model was around for so long and so many of them are still…

You should look up crash tests between cars considered safe in 1994 and modern cars. I saw one for two Renault Espace models. The old one was so crumply compared to the new one, that the new one didn't even deploy airbags because there was no need. Both got top safety ratings when new. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQS-7heF-og

Volvo and Mercedes are known to be very safe and reliable ( and that for many decades). (Mercedes cars manufactured until 1999 last literally many decades) "Modern" safety features like airbags, ABS, security glass were first introduced by those companies many years ago. There is a reason why presidents, the pope, etc drive in such cars.

The common US and EU standard crash test don't cover all real world crash situations and it has been shown in various recent tests that many newer car that got a 5 star rating aren't that safe in the real world. They were specifically designed for the well known crash tests, if another car hits you in a different angel or overlap, you have bad luck. Watch old episodes of the Top Gears TV series where the drive in "christmas special episodes" through Africa, Asia, etc with old cars - old Mercs and Volvo's survived, other cars failed because of mechanic or electronic issues.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#126

Post by pjc50 » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:54 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #107

ryandrake wrote: post #45

One of the things that makes a car valuable is having a healthy aftermarket. It looks like, from this article anyway, Tesla is doing anything they can to make sure there is no aftermarket for their vehicles. To me, a car that you can't service yourself is worthless. A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. And, when the manufacturer places a threateni…

> A car that needs the manufacturer's permission to activate is not your car--it's owned by the manufacturer. Yes, but on the other hand it is best to view a car as a service, because this makes sure that the interests of the manufacturer (or service provider) are aligned with those of the user: no more "planned obsolescence"; and the manufacturer will plan ahead for recycling of materials because this is in their be…

Have we learned nothing from Comcast? Has everyone forgotten Hush-A-Phone?

The user pays for a service, and the provider then tries as hard as possible to lock them in so the cost can be maximised. The interests are fundamentally at odds in that the user has money and the provider has shareholders who are trying to pry it from the user's hands.

The manufacturer will also not plan to recycle the thing unless they're in the EU where they're legally obliged to do so. Does your mobile contract include handset recycling?

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#127

Post by nkw » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 6:59 PM UTC

I'm glad someone wrote about this. I have a deposit on a Model X, and this is the single largest issue that is making me lean towards not buying the vehicle. I occasionally enjoy doing my own maintenance or repair on stuff I own and my present vehicle (close to a Model X equivalent but dinosaur powered and German) has been pleasant in that regard. There is nice fully functional (though Windows) third-party diagnostic software available, the actual service documentation is available to owners (for a pretty reasonable fee), there is a bit of competition on parts price amongst dealers (though ultimately only within a certain range as they still originate with one manufacturer) and I haven't once felt like instead of owning the car I merely have a license from the manufacturer to use it. I worry after the warranty expires that I will be at the mercy of Tesla for any service and support, which is an unknown quantity right now. I've seen the terrible spot a product owner can be left in when a manufacturer decides (for whatever reason) that service and support are now their primary profit center. Not only are you screwed in that your product now costs a fortune to maintain, your product is now essentially worthless for resale because everyone knows the cost to maintain and repair it makes it uneconomical. (See, e.g. several private aircraft companies which went bankrupt)

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#128

Post by imh » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 7:00 PM UTC

This seems to be part of a larger trend towards controlling the things we own. Cell phones, tractors, cars, and I'm sure tons of other things are moving this way, where they're trying to make it illegal to root/jailbreak/service your own property. Cell phones seem to be trying to move away from ownership in general. What's the solution?

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#129

Post by kuschku » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

martin_bech wrote: post #10

kuschku wrote: post #6

This is an interesting topic. And an interesting idea for a hack: Hacking a Tesla Model S to work without any connection to Big Brother, eh, Tesla, I mean.

But you want a connection to Big Brother, you want free super charging, you want software updates, you want free internet access and navigation, you want the free Spotify Account. My Car wouldnt have AutoPark, Summon, Traffic Aware Cruise Control, Lane Assist, Spotify, Autopilot, 50 ekstra Horse Power and so on, without the software updates the connection to Big Brother provides. (Euro Spec S85D)

That’s wrong.

Your car could have all these features just as well without connection to Big Brother.

Just as I can get intelligent email sorting without using Inbox.

You can write your own software, or reverse and modify the official software.

In fact, you can even use third party software.

In an ideal future, cars would have a general API for the software, and you could use software for different things from different vendors.

Want to use the self-driving software from Google, but Apple Music? Sure!

Want to use the self-driving software from Mercedes, but Spotify and the navigation from Here.com? Sure!

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#130

Post by kuschku » Sun, Mar 06, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #116

kuschku wrote: post #6

This is an interesting topic. And an interesting idea for a hack: Hacking a Tesla Model S to work without any connection to Big Brother, eh, Tesla, I mean.

Pull the SIM card, don't connect to WiFi, and done. The SIM card is a little inconvenient to get to, but it wouldn't be much of a hack.

Well, the hack would be having internet (and things like Spotify) without connecting to Tesla’s services.