Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

syonyk.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 367 posts

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#171

Post by soared »

pcarolan wrote: post #70

This sounds a lot like the open vs closed system debate we had/(have?) with computers. I'm glad that in my youth I could wrench on the internals of a PC and I'm glad that in my 30s I never have to because my Mac 'just works'. Also, this debate is older than I am: http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry...

The PC v MAC is an interesting parallel. Sure you can mod your pc and fix it yourself, just like most cars today. You also need very specialized skills and could ruin your whole system (Car or computer). Mac on the other hand, you can't really mod, but it just works and thats good enough for most people.

The difference is cars need regular maintenance and computers don't. The author is claiming maintenance on Tesla's is difficult, but he dismissed the point that they might not need regular maintenance like other cars.

I think only time will tell (a justification on most of his points) whether Tesla is the Mac of cars, or if Teslas still need regular maintenance.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#172

Post by toomuchtodo »

BufordTJustice wrote: post #146
toomuchtodo wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you get the source code for the ECU? You cannot.

Armin is right; further more, I suspect a lot of technology like MegaSquirt will continue to improve, and we'll have (thank god) aftermarket ECMs to put into these cars to give the user more control over the vehicle. We can only hope that a similar movement to Linux on PCs builds up steam up in the automotive space, as many of us like being able to understand, adapt, and improve on our vehicles.

Until you need verified checksums to drive on a public road.

Using public infrastructure is a privilege, not a right.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#173

Post by soared »

callesgg wrote: post #148

The first thing that hit my mind was that they are doing it the apple way, apple is doing quite fine with its locked devices. like most engineers I like to play with and explore my technical equipment but for most people it is just a hasle.

I had the same thought. How many people would ever even consider maintaining their own car? I bet its insignificant in the face of Tesla's target market.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#174

Post by seiji »

tokipin wrote: post #79

People used to repair televisions but at some point it became cheaper to just buy a new one due to the tech/manufacturing being sufficiently evolved and commoditized/cheap, as well as the issues involved with repairing more complex circuitry. Electric cars have the same potential, I think, because of their inherent simplicity. That potential already seems clear given that battery costs will keep falling.

VCR repair too.

The big thing nobody talks about (or some people even brag about) is how Tesla records your entire driving history to improve their future products. It's kinda creepy and you have no option but to obey if you want the Tesla Experience.

Other companies are trying to "catch up" in this way too like how Google Android Auto Car Integration requires manufactures allow Google Android Auto Car Integration to send live, real-time individual car performance data back to Google HQ so they can also analyze it all for their own purposes.

There's basically no legitimate reason why a 3rd party music player app requires your car to transmit real time acceleration data, sensor data, fluid levels, and seat positions back to Google.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#175

Post by AnthonyMouse »

micheljansen wrote: post #153
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…

I think it's the other way around: by restricting who can service the car, they are artificially keeping the resale value up, which works out to cheaper financing (after all, you finance the difference between purchase price and resale price).

How is restricting who can service the car supposed to keep the resale value up? It means the prospective buyer will have to pay more for repairs when they're necessary, the cost of which comes out of what they'll be willing to pay for the car.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#176

Post by wetmore »

loopbit wrote: post #95
pcarolan wrote: post #70

This sounds a lot like the open vs closed system debate we had/(have?) with computers. I'm glad that in my youth I could wrench on the internals of a PC and I'm glad that in my 30s I never have to because my Mac 'just works'. Also, this debate is older than I am: http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry...

If you had read Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance you'd known that it has very little to do with actual motorcycle maintenance, apart of using it as a tool to make its point.

This is a kind of dickish way to reply. Yeah it's not the original point but there is a discussion of this issue in it IIRC.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#178

Post by amelius »

ryandrake wrote: post #121
amelius wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Thin…

All the points you named can be solved by contracts and litigation (perhaps, yes we might need stronger consumer protection). What can't be solved (from what we've seen so far) is manufacturers polluting the environment to no end except by making their products into services.

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

Yes, please get over it. If you don't own a car, your car will not take up useless spacetime. Imagine what cities could look like without parking spots!

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#179

Post by greendesk »

I remembered this story when reading the article:

A boy wants to repair his dad's printer. As he troubleshoots the problem, he calls a repair shops with the information on the printer. The repair shops gives him guidance on how to repair the printer on his own and sends the parts for it. The boy asks: "Why would you do it? Would not you make more money by asking me to have it repaired at the shop?" "Oh, but when people try to repair it on their own they usually spend much more money after their attempted repair."

I have been burned many times by car repairmen. A misdiagnosed or malice repair is a very big nuisance. I rather trust official repairs than garage shops. If I had a Tesla, I would lean towards using the official service.

Re: Why I think Tesla is building throwaway cars

#180

Post by bliti »

enraged_camel wrote: post #74
bliti wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about the joy of auto repair. The vast majority of car owners cannot afford to repair their car. Even when parts are available. Having the technical documentation allows people to fix their cars. Tesla does not make the documentation available easily and parts, well, are pretty much as expensive as tesla wants them to be. Surely this is just a Tesla ownership issue. The problem is that Tesla will move to bui…

So far, we don't have any indication that Tesla will continue the same "closed-source" policies with their mass-market models. In fact they probably won't. They don't sell through dealers, so their repair "bandwidth" is obviously limited. They have got to be planning to allow third-party repairs at some point.

I did not downvote you, because your point is reasonable. I do disagree with it because it assumes that Tesla is putting their customers interests first. Their history points to the contrary. Your first sentence outlines the main point. It's similar to assuming that any successful closed source software will be open source when the product end of life is reached. Imagine assuming Microsoft open sourcing windows xp when it reach end of life. What kind of incentive would Microsoft have to let continue to run an open sourced maintained version of windows xp? None. Their interest is in selling more new windows keys. Thats why I assume tesla will continue to not provide any sort of documentation. The incentive to do so does not exist. Now, regulation that forces them to do so would provide the incentive. Thats why the right to repair act is so important.
Post reply on HN