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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 213 posts

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

#121

Post by irq-1 »

tremon wrote: post #66
oconnor0 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but How do we handle software ownership? If I sell you a piece of software that you now own, you can go and resell copies of that software to whoever you want. What is the best way to handle that?

That is already solved, and it's called copyright: if you're not the copyright holder, you are not allowed to sell/rent other copies of the software. What you do with the copy you originally obtained, is (should be) covered by the first sale doctrine.

What about updates? Are manufactures obligated to provide: security patches? mainline updates? feature additions? source and build ability for self/after-market changes?

Warranties on physical goods have a long history (in the US) of being void if the owner makes certain changes. Should that apply to software?

(great comment btw)

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

#122

Post by ggggtez »

StavrosK wrote: post #77
csallen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very important to realize that this is a problem that our generation will have to fix, or it will never be fixed. To us, this seems completely unnatural, because we've spent so many years in a world where this type of tech could be truly "owned." However, future generations born in the world of today will be totally accustomed to renting/licensing everything. They won't have the same fiery indignation that we do…

If the next generation will be fine with it, why fix it? Doesn't that just mean that we're our grandfathers, clinging to "the good old days" when we could own stuff?

We live halfway between this world and the next. If you don't own it, then justify paying full price?

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

#123

Post by FireBeyond »

lucideer wrote: post #90
snrplfth wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see how this is not ownership. You aren't renting, you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a rideshari…

I think this really gets to the crux of the conditions that motivate and lead to this sort of product culture: a litigious society. If people feel its desirable to combat this trend, they need to be willing to take more legal responsibility for how they choose to use their products. Otherwise, compromising on full unrestricted ownership is the price paid to cover manufacturers' insurance costs. Note: this isn't absol…

Tesla has a history of aggressive behavior, so I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out. Witness the guy who plugged into his ethernet port, found references to the Model 3, only to have Tesla remote in, downgrade his vehicle firmware to one that didn't have more references, so he couldn't discover more information, then disable his ethernet port completely, and send him a letter about his "unauthorized use of the car".

That wasn't protecting themselves from litigation. That's saying "this car is ours, you just get to use it, and we control how".

Just like you cannot get a service manual for Tesla vehicles. Except in MA, where it's required by law. Where you have to make an appointment, go into their office, and view the manual on-site, and can't take it with you. I believe you also have to pay a fee to do so, or at least did.

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

#124

Post by AnthonyMouse »

snrplfth wrote: post #95
csallen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it's not about Tesla building compatibility into their software. If that was necessary, then they wouldn't need to issue a warning to Teslas owners telling them not to drive for Uber/Lyft. What matters is how Tesla will respond when someone inevitably figures out a way to automate Uber/Lyft rides without needing any help from Tesla. If their response is merely, "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages," then t…

But saying "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages" will not fly with regulators, legislators, public opinion or the integrity of their brand. If someone modifies their Tesla to accept input from Uber, and Tesla does nothing to stop them, and it causes a crash or other problems, then there'll be headlines ("Tesla self-driving car stops in middle of highway!"), technology-ignorant bureaucrats will clamp down on s…

> But saying "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages" will not fly with regulators, legislators, public opinion or the integrity of their brand.

Why not? It's how everything else works. If you buy a house and then install your own electrical wiring which causes your house to burn down, you have no claim against the construction company and nobody blames them for it because it was your fault, not theirs.

This recent attitude of "people won't understand, therefore corporations have to be paternalistic" is patronizing and factually incorrect. People do actually understand. The worst outcome is that technology-ignorant bureaucrats require companies to clamp down on modding. But having companies do that to begin with is no improvement.

The basis of this seems to be the conceit that manufacturers can actually control their products after they've been sold. It can be true for a time, in the sense that it takes people that long to figure out how to break back into the things they own, but it happens. If you can jailbreak an iPhone then you can jailbreak your car.

Which means that we have a choice. The first option is to accept the inevitable and support it. Expect people to make changes and take responsibility for their own changes, and facilitate that. The second is to try to lock everything down, so that the people making modifications have no access to documentation and have to be running out of date software because the old version with the jailbreak vulnerability is the same old version with the anti-lock brake glitch, which makes it much more likely that people will die. What does that do for your brand?

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

#125

Post by FireBeyond »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #117
RUG3Y wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.

I'm voting that I don't mind, and buying at least two Model 3s when they're in full production. I support Tesla's decision.

Which is it, that you "don't mind", or that you "support" it?

If you support it, why? Otherwise, your comment adds no more substance than me saying "I'm against this." and offering no further explanation.

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

#126

Post by tonyhb »

forgottenpass wrote: post #119
tonyhb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber. The cut goes to Tesla to reward them for their work in making the hardware and software. That's instead of paying Uber, who fire people by email.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber. No I won't. It's simple economics that I won't. Assuming a future where I can choose to rent my car's free time to a ride sharing app. You just told me that I'd be able to make just as much money locked into a single customer as I would if different customers had to compete to rent my car's free time. And yes blah blah blah I could buy a different type of car. But market…

You're assuming a future with one app; Tesla. There are, and will continue to be, more apps, hence competition.

And we'v not covered that the dynamics are different. With Tesla you're not paying for fuel. Or for human time. You literally earn money while you do something else. This means that, over time, Uber and Lyft would be saturated by Teslas because it's a race to the bottom in terms of profit.

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

#127

Post by FireBeyond »

jomamaxx wrote: post #84
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…

"Now they come with software and a prohibition against customer modification or repair." This is not entirely unreasonable, they can probably justify it some way, of course it's probably just a away go guarantee their service contracts.

No, it is. It's well established case law.

If your modification or repair can be shown to contribute to a problem/ accident, you're held liable, not the manufacturer.

Instead it was used, and abused by manufacturers - "Oh, your transmission blew? Horrible! It's a real shame that you put aftermarket rims on your car, those are non approved parts and void your vehicles warranty!"

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

#128

Post by FireBeyond »

joering2 wrote: post #107
ohstopitu wrote: post #96

You can't do what you want, with a car you buy - even though this does not mean that it will be a lot cheaper :/ I'm more than willing to agree to this concept, if for example, Tesla sends me a new top of the line model 3/s/x every year for around 5k-ish/yr - At that price point, I feel that they can tell me what I can / can't do with "their" car. However, now, they expect people to pay the full price of the car (any…

> In a few decades, you'd not really own anything - the house you live in [...] Just to clarify, in the true meaning of the word "own", you never owned your house, and that goes to at least post WW2 times. If you believe you own your house simply because its paid off, then try not to pay property tax imposed on you by the county you live in. But don't be surprised if one year later Sheriff shows up at your "own" hous…

That's a facile example.

You still own your house, but the government, as elected by the people, has decided that one of the ways to encourage/ enforce property tax payment is the right to use said property as collateral. You explicitly agree that you are obligated to do so, and laws, which aren't secret, divulge the possible consequences of failure to do so. This in no way diminishes ownership, any more than you parking the car that you own somewhere that it may be towed and impounded means that you somehow "never really owned it".

If you want to talk about ownership of the -land- that's a different, tangential, kettle of fish.

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

#129

Post by forgottenpass »

tonyhb wrote: post #126
forgottenpass wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber. No I won't. It's simple economics that I won't. Assuming a future where I can choose to rent my car's free time to a ride sharing app. You just told me that I'd be able to make just as much money locked into a single customer as I would if different customers had to compete to rent my car's free time. And yes blah blah blah I could buy a different type of car. But market…

You're assuming a future with one app; Tesla. There are, and will continue to be, more apps, hence competition. And we'v not covered that the dynamics are different. With Tesla you're not paying for fuel. Or for human time. You literally earn money while you do something else. This means that, over time, Uber and Lyft would be saturated by Teslas because it's a race to the bottom in terms of profit.

You're assuming a future with one app; Tesla. There are, and will continue to be, more apps, hence competition.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that in the post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12753624 you're comparing between the choice of only being able to drive for Tesla's app vs being able to choose which app to drive for.

If you're not, I don't understand what you meant to say to the post you replied to.

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

#130

Post by FireBeyond »

StavrosK wrote: post #78
calvinbhai wrote: post #72

I had a similar reaction (as in the article) when I read the Tesla feature explanation initially. But, later I realized Tesla is not overstepping the boundary. Here's why I think so: Tesla is setting the correct expectations. Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla. So, if you own the car, and but are not needing the car to be used for a week…

It'll probably be called the Tesla Autonomous Ridesharing Network, though. TARN.

Tesla Ridesharing Autonomous Inter-Network. Or TRAIN.
Post reply on HN