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

621–630 of 659 posts

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

#621

Post by account42 »

addicted wrote: post #601
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…

Yeah, this is ridiculous. I had the exact same situation with, weirdly enough, InstantPot. My device had a clear warranty-covered issue during the warranty period. The model I had had been discontinued (and I suspect because of supply chain issues they didn’t have any in stock stateside anyways). They sent me the new upgraded model as a replacement which was at least twice as expensive. I would be mad as hell if a fe…

Unrelated, but it's weir how the electric pressure/combo cooker market has been cornered by InstantPot to the extend that plenty of recipe sites have specific InstantPot recipes rather than electric pressure/combo cooker recipes. There are competing devices but they seem to mostly fly under the radar. Perhaps it's just the term InstantPot being genericised? Don't have a complaint about mine at all but just feel a little bit icky when a brand gets that much mindshare.

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

#622

Post by account42 »

thrown_22 wrote: post #559
thereddaikon wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Heck, they could even cut down all legitimate 3080Tis to what would be 3080 or even 1060 performance via drivers after 3 years and you'd be able to do nothing besides complain on social media -- you still have exactly the amount of hardware sold, and they never promised any performance levels (just check their site, you only get things like compute units, clock speed, ram etc. not performance guarantees like FLOPs o…

It's called small claims court.

That might be worth for the $4500 Tesla downgrade but for the 3080 Ti vs. 3080 example you are probably going to spend more in court fees and wasted time than you are going to get unless small claims in your jurisdiction somehow lets you claim compensation for those too.

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

#623

Post by valdiorn »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #10

I'll spare the moral judgements against Tesla for this: The real moral of the story here is that if your business plan and practices is creating occasional weird issues and huge cognitive dissonance in your customers, it's the wrong business plan. Also... the number of people this applies to is likely so low that Tesla really screwed up by not erring on the side of the customer. (They didn't buy from Tesla, but they'…

This post has quite literally made me change my mind on buying a new Tesla, which is something I've been working towards for the last few weeks.

Back to square 1 looking at the competition.

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

#624

Post by account42 »

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…

> 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 then with the money I bought a bios writer and flashed the card back to a "Nvidia GTX 550 Ti".

So you defrauded someone and are proud of it? That they were themselves a fraudster does not make your actions right and you SHOULD return the card.

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

#625

Post by account42 »

squirtle24 wrote: post #501
giarc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The odd part is the OP said it was "badged as a 90" which to me implies Tesla also removed the physical badges on the car and replaced them to indicate it was a P90. That, to me, really implies they wanted to make this a P90 car.

There's no way Tesla themselves changed the badge to a 90, especially since the 90 appears to be some kind of mistake, given that they fixed the mistake years later. It was probably one of the previous owners, and them changing the badge without disclosing that it's actually a 60 seems to put the bad-faith blame on them. Having said that, if I was going to drop $40k on a used car, I would certainly have inspected eve…

> There's no way Tesla themselves changed the badge to a 90, especially since the 90 appears to be some kind of mistake, given that they fixed the mistake years later.

There is plenty of "way". Maybe they did mean to give it as a free upgrade bug did not properly document that. Maybe the person updating the badge did not realize that it was not supposed to be unlocked. Why are you jumping to conclusions like this just to give some corporation the benefit of the doubt especially when it in no way excuses them remotely downgrading the vehicle WITH NO WARNING.

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

#626

Post by account42 »

simondotau wrote: post #524
vkk8 wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds like all around bad decisions. The previous owner shouldn't have sold it as a 90 or at least disclosed that, "It's a 60 but Tesla swapped out the batter with a 90 and left it configured as a 90". To be fair, for people not intimately familiar with the craziness of modern tech business, it's reasonable to assume that whatever capabilities the car has at the moment of purchase, are going to be there indefinite…

Imagine you purchased a home and it wasn’t disclosed that the shed out the back was actually on your neighbor’s land.

Even that doesn't let the neighbour just bulldoze the shed when you are using it without involving the legal system.

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

#627

Post by HeavyStorm »

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…

Well, I get your point. But, still, what I'm reading is that when you buy a tesla you down really own it. Just like a game on Steam, or a ebook on Kindle.

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

#628

Post by horsawlarway »

yarg wrote: post #521
horsawlarway wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fucking exactly. I'm fucking over it. If I "own" the device - legally I should own a key to EVERY fucking lock inside it. Digital or physical. This attitude that it's acceptable to put a little green man inside of something you sell, and then retain control over that sold item using your little green man is insidious and immoral. I want it fucking banned yesterday, and it's rapidly becoming one of my strongest p…

Within reason, sure - but there are limits. End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability. I don't want an EV that's capable of accelerating at the maximum rate supported by the motors.

> End user control over safety critical software is not only dangerous, but a potential source of significant legal liability.

Sure is - and that's absolutely no reason to lock a person out of a car that they own. They OWN it - they are responsible for modifications (and the liability that comes with them). Exactly the same as every car built without a computer - which was roughly ALL of them until the late 70s/early 80s.

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

#629

Post by bena »

mlyle wrote: post #223
bena wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or. And I know this is radical. But stop selling the 6 core and sell the 8 core for the price of the 6. Yes revenue will fall, but your costs fell as well. Your margin should be roughly the same. Anyway, I thought that's what progress was supposed to be. We get better at making things, those things become cheaper. If the only difference between two physical items is that I'm not allowed to use all of one, what is the…

> Or. And I know this is radical. But stop selling the 6 core and sell the 8 core for the price of the 6. But you still get some 6 core parts-- just not enough to meet demand. In general, suppliers prefer modulating the mix of supply of their products entering the retail chain over endlessly modulating pricing to try and match demand. > Why are we justifying these corporations taking us for a ride? Well, one fundamen…

The demand for 6 core over 8 core is simply because the 6 core costs less than the 8 core. If the 8 core cost the same as the 6 core, you'd buy the 8.

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

#630

Post by bena »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #507
bena wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it a ridiculous extreme. If they're the same thing except you're just not allowed to use the full capacity of one, then what is the difference? It's not like two physically different products. My issue is that there is no differentiator besides "didn't give enough money".

Well, like I was trying to say, simplify it even further. Make it exactly the same product, some sold at price A and some sold at price B. Just because I can afford to sell some at a cheaper price doesn't mean I can afford to sell all of them at a cheaper price. Right? We can take issue with the software lock without saying something silly like "the lowest price must be the correct price". Sometimes the lowest price…

That just means both of your prices are wrong.
Post reply on HN