Jailbreaking Used Teslas • Hacker News Board

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#121

Post by xalava » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

ptero wrote: post #113

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 am a strong supporter of the ownership for things I buy. That said, this is a business decision for Tesla: they can insist that the use only rents the software and see if enough users still buy. The way out of it is through competition. My 2c

It doesn't work well through competition as it is a feature that is not relevant at the time of purchase. We have seen this already in other markets, from ink cartridge to planned obsolescence.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#122

Post by ip26 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

RyJones wrote: post #92

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.

this is already a thing in the used car market for people with really bad credit.

Worth noting for those people, their credit risk is so high the alternative is no loan and no car. It's not just lenders being jerks.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#123

Post by jojo2333 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

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

uhh lol, just because you own an iPhone doesn't mean you get all the features like Apple Music, etc.

I can think of a ton of examples where what you're saying is nonsensical.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#124

Post by paulryanrogers » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

simon1573 wrote: post #112

illumanaughty wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't agree with the analogy. Tesla manufacturers the whole package and you buy the car as a package. You don't buy the metal from your local car dealer and the software as a separate thing from Tesla. A more fitting analogy would be Apple charging you to upgrade your BIOS.

Except they're selling incomplete software and preorders of may-never-exist software with complete/finished hardware.

Updates to things I trust my family's life and health to should be classified like recalls, a sign of manufacturer failure and not a consumer privilege.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#125

Post by wolco2 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

jliptzin wrote: post #95

dragosmocrii wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, software and hardware come together. However the price of software should be factored in the price of the product itself (hardware + software). I am paying for both to own the product. If they issue a software update that makes better use of hardware, it means they failed to release good software to begin with (ofc perfect software doesn't exist). Now imagine if they found a way to increase battery life just wi…

On the flip side, what if they have an idea to improve battery life through software, but it will require significant R&D. If everyone were like you and refuses to pay for any software updates whatsoever, they wouldn’t want to make the investment.

Normally a big improvement with additional costs would go into the next model. I think charging for a hardware replacement is acceptable.

A pure software update fixing an existing issue I would say no. Car companies have recalls all of the time paid for by the company when something doesn't work as expected.

A software recall should be treated the same as a hardware recall.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#126

Post by giantg2 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #101

giantg2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My understanding was that individuals were supposed to be able to order parts independently of a specially licensed shop or dealer.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#127

Post by shi314 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:47 PM UTC

thefounder wrote: post #109

Nullabillity wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

Adobe Suite is a subscription based software solution. It is an inappropriate analogy. Does Microsoft asks for money for performance updates in Windows?

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#128

Post by dcow » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

eganist wrote: post #72

dcow wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FSD and other software upgrades follow the car. Cars can transfer owners just fine. If the car is wrecked and declared salvage , the software value is gone and only the parts can be used. If you rebuild the VIN you don’t magically get the software features back because in the Tesla DB it’s a salvaged car and they can’t (or won’t) be liable for it.

> the software value is gone and only the parts can be used. why?

Because Tesla can’t (or won’t) be liable for those aspects in a post-salvage vehicle. I’m not saying it’s optimal. It would be nice of there was a way to re-certify a vehicle or something. But in lieu of that I think it makes sense for the liability of running e.g. FSD software to transfer to the people salvaging or to the final new owner by way of third party modification to enable it.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#129

Post by rasz » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

fmsf wrote: post #107

Does anyone know if european consumer laws can play a role here? I tried to google but couldn't find anything

Its already illegal under magnufson-moss act, just a matter someone pissed and wealthy enough to sue.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#130

Post by shi314 » Sat, Oct 31, 2020, 5:51 PM UTC

xalava wrote: post #121

ptero wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a strong supporter of the ownership for things I buy. That said, this is a business decision for Tesla: they can insist that the use only rents the software and see if enough users still buy. The way out of it is through competition. My 2c

It doesn't work well through competition as it is a feature that is not relevant at the time of purchase. We have seen this already in other markets, from ink cartridge to planned obsolescence.

It is. When you purchase a car, you don't care about salvage and resale value? Tesla's move is akin to killing your money from resale. You are buying a 50k car, not your 1k smartphone.