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

#161

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

takeda wrote: post #99

snowwrestler wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think voting with dollars will do much on its own, for two reasons. 1) Goods powered by software are frequently much better than goods without. I mean, compare a phone with software vs. without. Compare a car with software vs. without. Which one would you rather have? 2) Entire industries are converting to software-based capability. Speaking of phones and cars, try to find a new one these days without softwar…

This is whole reason GNU and Open Source was started. When you have source, you are getting back control of your hardware.

I think access to source code is a key enabler. Even if it was limited in some ways, that would be a good start.

Imagine if Consumer Reports could access the code and do a code review when testing a car. We know from lawsuits that Toyota software is absolutely horrible, for instance. I'd think that insurance companies and consumers would benefit from knowing that up front.

Or imagine if repair shops could get certified for access to the software to modify it. Mod shops already do this on the sly--they're just hoping to fly under the law. Maybe they have to carry a bond, like home contractors.

On an Android device or Chromebook there is a user-adjustable setting that permits root powers. If there was a liability standard about this capability, then maybe more companies would feel comfortable offering it.

The ideal would be full source access to everything, but I think there probably will have to be some intermediate steps or limits, as a means of compromise.

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

#162

Post by MarkMc » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:01 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…

> And now apparently even paying $100,000 will not be enough to give full ownership rights to a car.

I think that's a good thing because it allows Tesla to receive an income that is closer to the value they have created.

The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to watch at home is about $15. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to play in a movie theatre is much higher. It's great that the movie studio can place restrictions on how you use the Blu-ray because it means the studio receives an income closer to the total value they have created. If there were no such restrictions the movie industry would be smaller and would make fewer movies.

The value of an autonomous Tesla car bought for private use is about $60,000. The value of an autonomous Tesla car bought for ride-sharing is much higher. It's great that Tesla can place restrictions on how you use the car because it means they receive an income closer to the total value they have created. If there were no such restrictions the car industry would be smaller and would make fewer autonomous cars.

If you feel it's wrong to place restrictions on the use of a Blu-ray, what is the benefit that outweighs having a smaller movie industry and fewer movies available to consumers?

If you feel it's OK to place restrictions on the use of a Blu-ray but not on an autonomous Tesla, what's the difference?

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

#163

Post by pault » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:15 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #62

aantix wrote: post #3

It's not enforceable, so why demand it Tesla? Nothing more annoying than a company that starts to overstep boundaries.. Stay out of my personal decisions.

it's probably unenforceable if one person is using their autonomous car for ridesharing, but i doubt that's what tesla cares about. If Uber decided to buy a fleet of autonomous Teslas and use them to operate an autonomous taxi service, instead of building their own autonomous car, Tesla could get that shut down pretty easily with these terms. And i'm guessing that's what they're targeting.

Why? If Uber buys a car, why should the manufacturer get to dictate what they do with it? I don't see how it's any different than the consumer use case.

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

#164

Post by DanBC » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

pault wrote: post #163

notatoad wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's probably unenforceable if one person is using their autonomous car for ridesharing, but i doubt that's what tesla cares about. If Uber decided to buy a fleet of autonomous Teslas and use them to operate an autonomous taxi service, instead of building their own autonomous car, Tesla could get that shut down pretty easily with these terms. And i'm guessing that's what they're targeting.

Why? If Uber buys a car, why should the manufacturer get to dictate what they do with it? I don't see how it's any different than the consumer use case.

The manufacturer provides a guarantee. That guarantee is based on expected uses. If the buyer uses the product well outside the expected use should they be covered by the same guarantee?

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

#165

Post by snrplfth » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:18 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159

snrplfth wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AnthonyMouse, I can't seem to reply to your comment directly, so I'll have to comment to mine. >They don't have to be, for the same reason that you don't have to understand Maxwell's equations to understand that it's possible to cause a fire with bad wiring. The concept of "the user modifications caused the problem" is not beyond the public understanding. Anyone who cares about more details than that can take the tim…

> AnthonyMouse, I can't seem to reply to your comment directly, so I'll have to comment to mine. The reply link doesn't appear right away on new posts. If you click the post time next to the poster's name it will open the post by itself which has the reply link. > Every time a Tesla has caught on fire, it's been reported on in numerous news outlets. And in every one of those stories there are ten people asking why th…

> And in every one of those stories there are ten people asking why this is a story because battery fires are less common than gasoline fires. System working as intended.

It's still FUD that they could rightfully perceive as hurting them. They're taking enough risks as it is, I can imagine that they don't need more criticism of their safety.

> But suppose they don't. You can't have it both ways. Either someone allows modifications and whatever hypothetical bad reactionary laws that causes will come to pass, or nobody does and the laws are never passed but the result is the same.

I'm not just saying it's about the laws (Tesla has had a hard enough time tangling with these, and has been specifically singled out by regulators on occasion, such as in Germany right now), but also about their brand. They're sensitive to criticism, and, therefore, to the possible sources of criticism - whether justified or not.

> Uber is going to make a self-driving car and then sell them to the public so that members of the public can lease it back to Uber and Lyft?

I'm saying that Uber is developing self driving cars (or rather, the self-driving systems) which they appear intent on using for their own fleet, rather than selling as a kit or whole car, which they could have done. Tesla has been selling cars already, but it's going to be selling a new kind of car which has certain Uber-like properties. There are a range of ownership options and this is not an inherently illegitimate one.

> Well first of all that's false, having them fix the problem saves you the trouble of doing it. But even identifying problems doesn't work without understanding. 99% of the fix is thoroughly understanding the problem. If the system is a black box then the user doesn't know how it's supposed to work. So you simultaneously get spammed with false positive bug reports from users who think there could be a problem but aren't allowed to understand whether there really is, and lose true positive reports because weird behavior gets written off as "it's a black box" and the last three things they reported were false positives.

Sure, understanding the problem often helps more than simply reporting "there is a problem". But they could allow people to inspect the code and diagnostics without allowing any changes, the first does not necessarily imply the second. And if you really allow people to get into the code deeply enough to make the kinds of changes that fix problems in the system itself (rather than some sort of API for strictly limited input) then you've potentially given a large amount of your system to your competitors.

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

#166

Post by qntty » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:22 PM UTC

Stallman was right

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

#167

Post by agentdrtran » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:45 PM UTC

pfarnsworth wrote: post #51

We pretty much were set on getting a Tesla next year. The fact that they can ban me from doing whatever I want has effectively stopped me from purchasing a Tesla. Not that I plan on doing car-sharing, but I refuse to spend so much money on something that I don't actually "own".

Then are you going to avoid basically every newer model vehicle? They all have the same TOS wrt software.

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

#168

Post by agentdrtran » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

joering2 wrote: post #158

FireBeyond wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 par…

I have not signed nor agreed on any such a thing. I got house from my grandpa who build it on his own land. So if anything I am forced into either paying the property tax or facing penalty of having my house closed down and put for bid. Call it anything but, please don't call it an ownership.

You're a 'taxes are theft' person aren't you?

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

#169

Post by imgabe » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:49 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #162

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…

> And now apparently even paying $100,000 will not be enough to give full ownership rights to a car. I think that's a good thing because it allows Tesla to receive an income that is closer to the value they have created. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to watch at home is about $15. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to play in a movie theatre is much higher. It's great that the movie studio can place restrictions…

By your logic car companies should have been charging more for cars used as taxis or other commercial purposes all along. The value of a Ford Crown Vic used by the police to stop a bank robbery is clearly higher than value of a Ford Crown Vic used to drive an 80-year-old between the retirement home and the golf course, right?

Oh, except that value was created by the person using the car not the car itself, which just sits there until someone does something. That person does all the work and assumes all the risk, so why should Ford be rewarded for their effort?

Do you want to go to Home Depot and pay different prices for nails based on the value of the building you're going to build with them? This rabbit hole goes a long way down.

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

#170

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Oct 20, 2016, 7:52 PM UTC

MarkMc wrote: post #162

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…

> And now apparently even paying $100,000 will not be enough to give full ownership rights to a car. I think that's a good thing because it allows Tesla to receive an income that is closer to the value they have created. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to watch at home is about $15. The value of a Blu-ray disc bought to play in a movie theatre is much higher. It's great that the movie studio can place restrictions…

closer to the value they have created

This isn't really how free markets work, though; either it's a competitive market in which the profit margin tends to zero, or (especially for SV unicorns) it's a monopoly or market-dominating company that gets to charge monopoly prices.

The market valuation for Uber isn't based on today's profits, it's the expected value of a string of future profits which can only be realised without strong competition. Likewise Tesla. Only one of them can win.

(The argument that DRM on blu-rays enlarge the movie industry really needs substantiating and accounting for the increased cost of blu-rays and players. This is separate from the copyright rules on public performance of recordings.)