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

Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 659 posts

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#581

Post by brokenmachine »

nicoburns wrote: post #530
jabbany wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC some (?) of their lower capacity cars come out of the factory with higher capacity batteries + a software lock and you can pay to enable the extra capacity ($4500 according to this post apparently). So, the dead mass is there even in brand new cars. I'm guessing the 60 -> 90 swap is because they're not making 60 anymore and it's just all 90 with a software cap... The OP thread even mentions that essentially Tesl…

I feel like digital licenses that control access to physical goods should just be banned. Putting a 90kwh battery in a car and not letting people use it is incredibly wasteful in a world where battery supply is a key limiting factor on EV production.

Although I agree with you in some ways, there are things like SSDs that are overprovisioned so they have a bit of extra space that they can use as the flash degrades.

Not having that extra space will dramatically lower the lifespan and reliability of the drive. Same with these batteries.

They just need to be honest about what they're selling.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#582

Post by Crosseye_Jack »

rsynnott wrote: post #493
danudey wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine Apple replacing your broken Macbook Pro M1 base model with the upgraded model because they didn't have any exact replacements in stock, and then years later deciding to disable two of the CPU cores, two of the GPU cores, and half the SSD space (1 TB to 512 GB). People, especially on HN, would lose their freaking minds. They would also lose their minds if Apple only sold the highest-end model but firmware-lock…

Intel has occasionally done this: https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-char... It tends not to go down well.

And they are planning to do it again https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-software-defined-cpu...

Now this time the idea is that because their differnt SKU's are basically the same chip under the hood anyway just locked at the Silicon level why not allow them to be unlocked if the extra features are found to be needed after purchase.

This happen in other markets just fine. One market that jumps to mind is oscilloscopes, you will basically have a single piece of hardware spanning multiple skus where features are disabled via software/hardware (sometimes the CPU is just reading resistor values or jumpers to determine which model it is and therefore which features it has enabled), one notable vendor jumps to mind is Hantek. You can take a 70Mhz scope and opening it up to unlock it to 250mhz. (The same can be done in a number of Rigol scopes iirc)

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#583

Post by ROTMetro »

jtbayly wrote: post #413
jabbany wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it didn't. The post said the battery had a 90 badge and the car reported capacity as if it were 90. Neither of these are direct claims by Tesla that an "upgrade" happened. Some 2060s also have dies marked for 2080s that are then fused (re: badging doesn't imply performance). Similarly, you could potentially overclock a GPU and end up having measured performance that matched a higher model (re: car reported c…

I’m sorry, in what world is having an actual 90 physically installed by Tesla, and enabled physically by Tesla, able to be used and reported as such in the Tesla UI less relevant than some row in the Tesla sales db? Tesla did put in the 90 and enable it! The fact that there isn’t a receipt proving that anybody paid for it is irrelevant. It could have been a gift, a reward, a thank you, a bribe, a reasonable business…

If I sell a base package of software, and the same codebase has advanced functionality sold as an option/upgrade, with the only difference being the software key used to activate the software, and a version of my software fails the key validation and gives you everything, am I now required to upgrade you to the full version forever?

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#584

Post by ROTMetro »

undersuit wrote: post #125
balls187 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If my RTX3080 breaks, and Nvidia sends me a 3080Ti as a replacement(because maybe they don't have any 3080 in stock) then no, they can't lock it down to 3080 level 3 years later with a software update. And yes, I'm allowed to sell it on as a 3080Ti, because....that's what it is. What if it's a 3080Ti PCB but inside a RTX3080 card? Is it ethical to sell it as a 3080Ti? What about an RTX3080 Card that Nvidia drivers…

There were some very powerful software upgrades you could preform on GPUs... https://verrytechnical.info/safely-unlocking-extra-shaders-i... Would AMD have been in the right to force a bios downgrade in the next driver release? Also that LTT and a related Gamers Nexus video convinced me to buy an obviously counterfeit "Nvidia GTX 970" from ebay, report the seller for the sale, I got to keep it, I got refunded, and th…

My ASUS Zephyrus received a BIOS update from ASUS that downgraded the video card memory overclocking ability and mining hash rate of the 3070.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#585

Post by pedalpete »

zcw100 wrote: post #48

So the way I'm reading the post is Tesla swapped out a battery pack for a 60 with a 90 and enabled the 90. Tesla, years later, discovers that even though the hardware for a 90 was installed it should have been software limited to be a 60. (I'm assuming that Tesla only made the owner pay the cost of the 60 battery swap even though they replaced it with a 90). They go and "fix the glitch" and set it back to the 60. Sin…

You nailed it by discussing goodwill.

Where has our goodwill gone? It isn't just Tesla, but they are a quite brutal offender.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#586

Post by izzydata »

enragedcacti wrote: post #556
izzydata wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, so they should do the only logical thing and vote out Elon as Tesla's CEO so he stops destroying whatever public image they have left. Elon doesn't "do" anything besides be a double edged hype machine.

It would be amazing if Tesla were a worker cooperative where that were possible. Trying to hold Elon to a standard in his companies gets you fired, not him: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-17/spacex-fi...

How can any self respecting individual work in such an environment? It's sad to know there are so many talented engineers that spend all of their days making amazing things that Elon just takes credit for.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#587

Post by bgirard »

dagss wrote: post #490
bgirard wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key of this issue here is that there's a software lock that's been incorrectly unlocked. So it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future. Regardless of the product, I believe that morally it needs to be disclosed to the buyer so that they can be aware of the risk and factor that into their buying decision and pricing. > I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also include…

I disagree with "it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future". Unless this was very explicitly explained by Tesla to first customer. The default assumption is going to be "they were out of 60kWH batteries so they gave me a 90kwh battery" end of story. And gifts cannot in general be taken back. Certainly not from later owners. It is not like Tesla will give you lots of information. I k…

I think my original language was unclear. Let me rephrase it to: It's a prudent assumption for an educated buyer to expect a lock feature that was unlocked accidentally to become locked again later knowing companies like Tesla and their customer service track record.

I agree that Tesla taking it away after a long period of time is unreasonable.

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#588

Post by crooked-v »

babypuncher wrote: post #499
crooked-v wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None, sure, right now. But what happens when a judge eventually rules that putting 'actually, this is just a temporary license' in the fine print isn't sufficient? It's likely to happen eventually.

I think it is a stretch to go from "EULAs that declare software licenses to be temporary are invalid" to "software products must be actively supported with patches indefinitely".

Sure, but that's also not what I was talking about at all.

Consider Steam, right now. What happens when some judge eventually rules that it's entirely reasonable to put your Steam library in your will and divide it up between different people?

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#589

Post by judge2020 »

cowtools wrote: post #93
AinderS wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contracts and DRM are two sides of the same coin when it comes to chipping away at ownership. They want to segment the market as finely as possible, to capture all of the excess value of their product. E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers…

I have always suspected that nvidia's closed source drivers are an intentional result of hiding poorly-implemented limitations (see code 43 error, etc.) for the sake of market segmentation between data-center and gaming models. They would be screwed if data centers realized they could just reuse cheap off-the-shelf components for a fraction of the price. Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecos…

Do you think CUDA development would be completely sustained by the profit margins of consumer cards (that would then be shared between the CUDA and gpu research teams)?

Re: Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

#590

Post by oangemangut »

frumper wrote: post #385
JamesSwift wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rivian I put my order in and at least I have an order date and understand that I'm in the queue and should be sometime MY24 Is that "Model Year 24"? So they gave you an estimate of a year-long window, but also did not guarantee the date? How is that much different than "Youre on the list" with a traditional dealership?

Dealership lists are more like we'll call you if one comes in, and we'll call everyone else on the list right after. First one here gets to buy it. Also, if we have a buddy that wants it, we'll give him a heads up before we call you.

Exactly. Also, many of them are very coy about what dealer markup will apply if they ever do get an allocation. You could also be on a list at a dealership that never gets an allocation for you, because they don't get many cars and there are too many people ahead of you. It's not only opaque but also untrustworthy.
Post reply on HN