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

241–250 of 296 posts

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#241

Post by davidgould »

perlgeek wrote: post #182
KMnO4 wrote: post #5

Maybe Tesla should link these features to a user's account, not the vehicle. If I sell my iPhone, I'm not selling the apps that I have installed on it. A side effect of this approach is that you could get a new Tesla and log in to activate the features you already paid for. If you crash your Model 3 and insurance buys you a new one, should you have to pay for Autopilot again? That said, that approach may piss off peo…

> That said, that approach may piss off people as well. Imagine paying $50k for a Tesla, and only being able to get $30k when you sell it because you paid $20k for features that won't transfer over to the new owner. Even worse if your new car isn't a Tesla: that money would be lost. There's an easy fix for that: add the option to transfer the Autopilot to another account. Then you can sell off the Autopilot as well.…

When you sell, all the options transfer to the new owner. When you trade it in to Tesla they may remove them.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#242

Post by stale2002 »

judge2020 wrote: post #156
GhostVII wrote: post #103

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, basica…

Surely the people salvaging these cars would be happy to enter into a contract with Tesla to accept all liability (including superchargers/stations) for damages caused by the car they fixed up, then, right? Edit to add from a below comment I made: I mean more in the scenario of a cell going bad, causing a fire, then maybe blowing up the car and causing collateral damage. As I understand it, this would be covered by t…

> would be happy to enter into a contract with Tesla

It is not Tesla's car. They don't own it anymore.

The liability would be the same for any other car.

> this would be covered by the car's insurance, right

Yes. Which has nothing to do with Tesla.

> then I can accept Tesla not wanting to be held liable

Tesla does not own that car. The car would be the same as any other car that Tesla does not own.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#243

Post by stale2002 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #28
refurb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But isn't that every company that has every sold a product? I mean, they aren't giving it away.

There is a belief running around that Tesla should act like a charity instead of a business while trying to claw its way up to a volume automaker. Software sales are high margin compared to physical auto sales. Tesla is free to do whatever is supported by contract law as it relates to software licensing, including stripping licenses off vehicles when transfers (like trade ins) done through Tesla (versus a private tra…

> Tesla is free to do whatever is supported

And the rest of society is free to use the legal system against Tesla, and to change laws so as to punish them specifically, or the court system. And I personal hope that such things could be applies retroactively.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#244

Post by JoeAltmaier »

stale2002 wrote: post #242
judge2020 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the people salvaging these cars would be happy to enter into a contract with Tesla to accept all liability (including superchargers/stations) for damages caused by the car they fixed up, then, right? Edit to add from a below comment I made: I mean more in the scenario of a cell going bad, causing a fire, then maybe blowing up the car and causing collateral damage. As I understand it, this would be covered by t…

> would be happy to enter into a contract with Tesla It is not Tesla's car. They don't own it anymore. The liability would be the same for any other car. > this would be covered by the car's insurance, right Yes. Which has nothing to do with Tesla. > then I can accept Tesla not wanting to be held liable Tesla does not own that car. The car would be the same as any other car that Tesla does not own.

A defect that is the fault of the manufacturer is certainly a way to sue Tesla for 'cars they don't own'. Happens all the time. Daily.

And after you jailbreak your Tesla and cause an injury accident, who's to know? Just say you didn't, and it was Tesla's defect. Of course Tesla is concerned.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#245

Post by fastball »

lights0123 wrote: post #231
jiofih wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not right now, but they did. Snow Leopard was $29, Mountain Lion was $19.

That was 8 years ago. Mountain Lion came out before even Windows 8, where even Microsoft was charging for upgrades too before releasing the final version (major version, not build version) of Windows.

Doesn't MSFT still charge for every OS update?

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#246

Post by fastball »

amelius wrote: post #230
toxik wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algorithms which only Tesla can give you. That is why it’s a dick move to sell it to you.

I think the definition of monopoly should be updated to include this case. When a company sells you hardware without documenting the API or making it fully accessible, then they have a monopoly over selling software for that particular hardware. (A similar thing would hold for business models like selling printers for cheap but making the cartridges expensive, etc.)

Meh, to me this is only reasonable if they're using some form of integrity checking to prevent you from fiddling with the bits.

To my mind, any product sold can have integrity checking, but as the owner I should be able to disable it if I want to.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#247

Post by MertsA »

shi314 wrote: post #127
thefounder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Err well actually depending on the edition of Windows Microsoft has long had limitations on the amount of RAM and IIRC multi socket support. Not as part of some architectural change within Windows, literally just a limit on the amount of usable RAM like Windows 7 Home Premium would only allow 16GB.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#248

Post by vonseel »

GhostVII wrote: post #103

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, basica…

Does it disable the ability to charge, or the ability to fast charge?

Certainly they can't prevent you from charging and driving around your wrecked Tesla on your farm or whatever?

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#249

Post by mkhpalm »

busterarm wrote: post #55
alextheparrot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A salvage title doesn't necessarily mean the car is junk, though. The fact that you can revive a salvage title clearly shows this. A lot of the cars my family has driven were revived by my father, it is economical and more sustainable in my opinion. I personally don't support any attempts by auto makers to make cars more disposable.

I'm keeping a 33 year old vehicle alive and it's still a joy to drive. My other car is newer but still with low mileage and in excellent condition. It's not really that hard, but so much has been done deliberately to make it more difficult. I'm finding older vehicles more and more desirable than newer ones.

I've never understood how tesla doesn't get subjected to a very expensive recall to retrofit their vehicles with an OBDII port that actually works. Bare minimum it should have to provide the subset of PIDs that are applicable to it. Odometer, time since start, voltages, throttle position, battery pack remain life, etc.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#250

Post by busterarm »

mkhpalm wrote: post #249
busterarm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm keeping a 33 year old vehicle alive and it's still a joy to drive. My other car is newer but still with low mileage and in excellent condition. It's not really that hard, but so much has been done deliberately to make it more difficult. I'm finding older vehicles more and more desirable than newer ones.

I've never understood how tesla doesn't get subjected to a very expensive recall to retrofit their vehicles with an OBDII port that actually works. Bare minimum it should have to provide the subset of PIDs that are applicable to it. Odometer, time since start, voltages, throttle position, battery pack remain life, etc.

Legislators, lobbyists and car manufacturers are working hard together to obsolete and replace OBDII with something that is completely locked away from consumers and independent mechanics forever.
Post reply on HN