Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network • Hacker News Board

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#21

Post by bryanlarsen » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 1:54 PM UTC

There are a bunch of possible good reasons that Tesla might want to do this:

- liability

- hacking prevention: anybody in the car will be able to take over the car, so you should make sure there's always somebody you trust in the car

- regulatory: the owner of the car is liable for any infractions a car makes, so only there should always be somebody you trust in the car

But the wording makes clear that this is just a cash grab. You'd think that Tesla would have worded it to imply that they actually have a good reason...

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#22

Post by simonlc » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

MatthewMcDonald wrote: post #8

awesomerobot wrote: post #5

A venn diagram with two circles that don't intersect: "Can afford a Tesla" "Wants to drive for Uber"

I think it's more appropriate to model: "Can afford a Tesla" "Wants to monetize Tesla when not using it"

I doubt driving for Uber will earn you a net profit, considering the millage on your car.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#23

Post by anbende » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

If this is really about Tesla pushing their own ridesharing, wouldn't it be smarter for them to make all future price-breaks contingent on using their system? That way if someone really wants to drive Uber they can, but it'll cost them 10-15k extra for the "unlocked" version. This would seriously curtail Teslas being used on competing services, and when they were, Tesla would make money...

Seems like it would be better to do it with pricing than irritating rules...

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#24

Post by uptown » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

awesomerobot wrote: post #5

A venn diagram with two circles that don't intersect: "Can afford a Tesla" "Wants to drive for Uber"

This guy tried it:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-uber-driver-picks-you-...

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#25

Post by TheCondor » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

anbende wrote: post #23

If this is really about Tesla pushing their own ridesharing, wouldn't it be smarter for them to make all future price-breaks contingent on using their system? That way if someone really wants to drive Uber they can, but it'll cost them 10-15k extra for the "unlocked" version. This would seriously curtail Teslas being used on competing services, and when they were, Tesla would make money... Seems like it would be bett…

Are they preventing you from driving for uber or are they preventing their software from driving for uber?

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#26

Post by sideshowb » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

This sounds more like a PR stunt than anything else.

Honestly how many jurisdictions will allow self driving vehicles (without a human on board) to function before the current generation of cars reach end of life?

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#27

Post by jsprogrammer » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #21

There are a bunch of possible good reasons that Tesla might want to do this: - liability - hacking prevention: anybody in the car will be able to take over the car, so you should make sure there's always somebody you trust in the car - regulatory: the owner of the car is liable for any infractions a car makes, so only there should always be somebody you trust in the car But the wording makes clear that this is just a…

All of those reasons would apply to any other vehicle.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#28

Post by daddykotex » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 2:02 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #20

The erosion of the concept of "ownership" continues. Traditionally, goods are subject to the first sale doctrine--once I buy a shirt, it's my property, and if I want to sell or rent it, I can. It's mine. But software is licensed. When I buy a piece of software, I'm actually paying for a limited and revokable right to use someone else's property. And now companies are putting software into more and more goods. As soft…

> The erosion of the concept of "ownership" continues.

> Traditionally, goods are subject to the first sale doctrine--once I buy a shirt, it's my property, and if I want to sell or rent it, I can. It's mine.

> But software is licensed. When I buy a piece of software, I'm actually paying for a limited and revokable right to use someone else's property. And now companies are putting software into more and more goods.

That's a pretty good summary.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#29

Post by virtualsue » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

Surely this is to stop Uber, Lyft etc from buying a fleet of the things for their business use, rather than targeting individual drivers specifically (though they're happy to stop that too).

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#30

Post by mountaineer22 » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 2:08 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #15

jellicle wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you think it's not enforceable? Indeed, the more restrictions Tesla adds, the more enforceable it is: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/09/the-end-of-used-m...

Because if Tesla is legitimately able to use the force of law to prevent me from using the car in a a way I see fit, Tesla owns the car not me, and they have not sold me a car, they have sold me a perpetual license. (Which your linked article makes clear.)

Fraud?