111–120 of 773 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay great, but now the lowest cost of the car is an extra $10k because the manufacturing just got a lot more complicated as a result of not being able to build every car the same way.
That sounds like problem of a manufacturer not problem of a user.
Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.
I've been thinking about this as a thought experiment lately. Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference. At what point below are you ticked off ? Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that. (I think this is how cars have alw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking about this as a thought experiment lately. Let's say there's two versions of the car. Higher spec has heated seats, lower spec doesn't. Let's say it's a $1000 price difference. At what point below are you ticked off ? Level 1: The higher spec car has the physical seat heaters, all the wiring, all the plugs and all the software. The lower spec car has none of that. (I think this is how cars have alw…
Level 6: The lower spec car has the physical seat heater, all the wiring, all plugged in, all the software, and a setting added (for extra production cost) that makes it not work and can't be changed by the car owner. We are talking about this one. The entire thread is about this one, and none of your options even passed through the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Contract law is running afoul of the first-sale doctrine here. Tesla can not enforce many clauses in a potential contract or license via the legal system, so it's not as cut-and-dry as "you don't own the code". Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least).
> Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least). Reverse engineering to utilize software you didn't pay for and don't have a license or some other legal authority to use is unlikely to pass muster legally, versus for interoperability purposes. https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (Control-F "What…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright has zero application here unless you redistribute Tesla's code or binaries. Reverse-engineering is a legal practice (in US law, at least). Reverse engineering to utilize software you didn't pay for and don't have a license or some other legal authority to use is unlikely to pass muster legally, versus for interoperability purposes. https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (Control-F "What…
Tesla can't sue you if you splice a switch into the seat heater relays! I don't know if that's a good idea. Or maybe they thought of that and they don't turn on unless there's some of key exchange.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/12/23204950/bmw-subscription...
EDIT: I stand corrected. It appears there was a window of time where Tesla offered rear heated seats as an upgrade on a base trim standard range Model 3.
https://electrek.co/2020/02/15/tesla-rear-heated-seats-model...
Pretty sophisticated attack vector: low voltage attack on AMD secure execution environment during boot. I wonder how many tries you need to get whatever bits you need in the right place. Also, I imagine you only need to cut 12V wires to do this, but I admire the willingness to get in there direct on these systems. I'd be a little nervous to make those cuts personally. Buried in the article is the claim that this will…
>that's got to be really bad news for someone in vehicle security at Tesla. It says in the article: " Generally, these exploits are shared with Tesla, and it helps the automaker secure its systems." So it's only a matter of time till Tesla patches it.
So hackers can claim they called tesla, and tesla can ignore it and we no wiser
Good. People who buy things should own the things they buy.
I want to add agreement to this, but to be more precise: people should own the things they buy and artificial (software ) means of locking people out of features shouldn't be allowed.
That's like asking Intel to fix a processor you overclocked
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t mind hardware shipping locked and being an optional fee to unlock. I have paid for the rear heated seats in my model 3. What I’m vehemently opposed to is ongoing fees for things that don’t have ongoing costs. BMW wants to charge monthly for seat heaters or carplay, but those things are not a service and don’t have ongoing costs for BMW to provide. If anything creating an ongoing software lock creates an avail…
I feel different about extra cores on a CPU than I do about heated seats. The manufacturing price delta between an 8 core CPU and a 16 core, nowadays is functionally meaningless. The manufacturing cost between a car with heated seats and without headset seats is functioningaflly meaningful. The way I see it, for things like heated seats or CarPlay, I'm already paying for the base hardware cost (plus some margin) as p…
Citation needed. The way assembly lines and product mix work, it could be meaningfully less expensive to have all the hardware be identical with software unlocks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they don't own the license to use the software (Full Self Driving). I agree with you about the heated seats though.
I'm ok with charging subscription fees for services with ongoing costs (things like cell connectivity for remote monitoring or something), and I'm ok with charging one time fees for unlocking features that are already there, since it allows for price discrimination, cheaper and more efficient manufacturing, and better prices to the customer overall (potentially at least). But the flip side of that is that...if you pu…
That's not true and it's most definitely not a valid legal position to take in defense