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

Jailbreaking Used Teslas

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 296 posts

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#101

Post by colejohnson66 »

giantg2 wrote: post #37
foepys wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Afaik the bad repairability of Tesla is mostly down to the lack of parts. You cannot just order parts from Tesla, you need to be an approved shop and even then it sometimes takes months for basic things like a bumpers or fenders to be delivered.

I'm not sure how that's even legal under the magnufson-moss act. If Tesla requires you use their parts (the software portions and other many other parts are copyrighted to prevent aftermarket suppliers), then they would be required to provide them.

If they are providing them, but it just takes a month or two to get the part, it’s not much different than Apple

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#102

Post by colejohnson66 »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #70
thrill wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do own the car. You just don't own the service.

Self driving is not a service, it is a feature of the car.

If it’s optional, is it really a feature? I know that’s a technical question, but a few years ago, when one got a car with a nav system, that was sometimes an optional purchase. Basically, it’s not that clear cut.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#103

Post by GhostVII »

The worst part isn't even listed in the article - Tesla is remotely disabling fast charging on all salvage cars across all networks, regardless of what the actual damage is. If it was just limited to the supercharger network I would somewhat understand, it's their network and I don't think it's a huge deal to disallow salvage cars on it. But they are removing the ability to charge even at third party chargers, basically removing any ability to go on a reasonable road trip with your car, with no warning. Completely insane, especially since many salvage cars just had body damage.

This is why I don't want a car connected to the internet. The behavior of my 50k vehicle should not change unexpectedly because some guy in silicon valley pushed an update.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#104

Post by teraflop »

tedunangst wrote: post #96
Okawari wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But I wouldn't accept my motherboard supplier locking hardware features behind software updates either. Like if my can do pci express 16x. I wouldn't think it is right that it only does 8x unless I pay for a software unlock

You just described basically every consumer motherboard with raid. It's there in the chipset, but requires a key to unlock.

Every consumer motherboard that I've bought in the last decade or more has supported RAID, and none of them have required any additional purchase to "unlock" it.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#105

Post by illumanaughty »

dragosmocrii wrote: post #74
ydlr wrote: post #60

How long until Tesla (or any manufacturer) remotely disables the ignition on all used cars until the new owner pays them to turn it back on. Its only fair. After all, the new owner just bought a hunk of metal from the previous owner. They still need to purchase a license for features like starting the car.

I remember when Tesla issued that paid software update to make your car accelerate 0-100 a 0.1 seconds faster. If the hardware is there unchanged, why should the software update be a paid upgrade? It means the software was not good to begin with. Seems to me Tesla is trying to model a software development business, but they forget they're in the hardware business

Owners of photoshop don't get free updates even though they own their computer. Software costs money to develop so saying all updates should be free simply because they already own the hardware doesn't makes any sense.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#106

Post by Nullabillity »

thefounder wrote: post #76
dragosmocrii wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when Tesla issued that paid software update to make your car accelerate 0-100 a 0.1 seconds faster. If the hardware is there unchanged, why should the software update be a paid upgrade? It means the software was not good to begin with. Seems to me Tesla is trying to model a software development business, but they forget they're in the hardware business

You pay for software updates/upgrades on your PC, right? Like it or not you don't own rhings anymore. Neither software or hardware. Everything is going towards subscription models.

> You pay for software updates/upgrades on your PC, right?

No...?

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#109

Post by thefounder »

Nullabillity wrote: post #106
thefounder wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You pay for software updates/upgrades on your PC, right? Like it or not you don't own rhings anymore. Neither software or hardware. Everything is going towards subscription models.

> You pay for software updates/upgrades on your PC, right? No...?

How is that? Every new Adobe Creator package used to have a different price(e.g cs3, cs4) Now you can't even upgrade. You pay monthly subscriptions. You pay for OS upgrades as well(i.e win vista, 7, 10 etc)

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#110

Post by bonzini »

illumanaughty wrote: post #105
dragosmocrii wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when Tesla issued that paid software update to make your car accelerate 0-100 a 0.1 seconds faster. If the hardware is there unchanged, why should the software update be a paid upgrade? It means the software was not good to begin with. Seems to me Tesla is trying to model a software development business, but they forget they're in the hardware business

Owners of photoshop don't get free updates even though they own their computer. Software costs money to develop so saying all updates should be free simply because they already own the hardware doesn't makes any sense.

The hardware and software manufacturers are different, no? IBM mainframe owners do get updates for free.
Post reply on HN