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

Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 213 posts

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#111

Post by comboy »

jwegan wrote: post #102
grecy wrote: post #82

A few people here have mentioned maybe Telsa just want to stop Uber/Lyft buying a bunch of Telsas and operating an autonomous fleet. My questions is - why would Tesla want to stop them doing that? The goal is to transition the world to sustainable transport, ASAP. If companies are buying tens of thousands of their cars, that's great! I have to wonder if Tesla want to stop this because they want to make the profit fro…

Probably branding? If Uber/Lyft start operating a lot of Teslas, then they start to loose their brand allure and people start to view them as just taxis

Never heard of a car brand that would ban using it for taxi purposes.

If you take a ride in a taxi, and you like what you see, you seem more likely to buy that car in the future.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#112

Post by logfromblammo »

FungalRaincloud wrote: post #106
StavrosK wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the next generation will be fine with it, why fix it? Doesn't that just mean that we're our grandfathers, clinging to "the good old days" when we could own stuff?

Well, it's not a question of whether the next generation will be fine with it, it's a question of whether that is something we wish for them to have to accept. Yes, we are definitely the old farts, but we also get to shape culture, because we are still part of the culture we live in. I would add, though, that whether the next generation accepts it or not is not really the problem. It won't likely be viewed as a posit…

One other thing to consider is that the generation that hasn't been born yet may invent laws that will go into effect while you are still alive.

If you do not propagate cultural values that prioritize true ownership to younger generations now, you may be punished for your attempts to assert true ownership later.

I really don't want to jailbreak my automobile when I'm 70, and then get reported to the cops when my grandchild discovers that I have been changing my own oil, or uploading music ripped from 50-year-old CDs to the entertainment system, or modifying the control system for a manual input override, or blocking my usage data from being uploaded to the government.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#113

Post by snowwrestler »

snrplfth wrote: post #89
Jugurtha wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree and slightly point out a difference: John Deere tells you what you can't do to your tractor; Tesla Motors tells you what you can't do with your car, which is way worse as the forbidden use is not even diverting the primary use of the car in a way that would cause damages they wouldn't be willing to fix or something. Basically, it's a car manufacturer telling you you can't drive certain people for a certain re…

No, it's a car manufacturer telling you that they do not want you handing over control of a vehicle to ridesharing programs that they cannot be sure are compatible with their self-driving systems. Ridesharing programs will literally be giving control inputs to the car, and Tesla has determined that those inputs should come either from licensed drivers or from their own ridesharing program. Because they're not dumb an…

Liability is a crucial area of the law that needs to evolve in response to software.

Liability with respect to the operation of physical products is well understood. There are private standards that insurance companies and courts are familiar with (for example: Underwriter Labs, NIST, NSF, ANSI). If your product passes the relevant standard, and a customer causes harm with the product, then you've got a great argument that your company should not be held liable for that harm.

Software licenses almost always just try to disclaim any and all liability entirely. "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS-IS AND IS NOT FIT FOR ANY PURPOSE"--anyone who has read a software license has probably seen language like that.

Then on top of that, software is increasingly networked with centralized services. Tesla's self-driving technology, as described so far, will be dependent on data made available over the network--like whether the radar return at a given location is a known billboard. So liability will attach to not just the car, not just the software, but also the real-time service run by Tesla.

Companies use liability as a major reason to restrict the rights of consumers. We need industry and legal frameworks to allocate liability for software and services like we have for physical goods.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#114

Post by bluehawk »

moon_of_moon wrote: post #33

How would this work? "Dear Customer - your usage patterns shows that you are using your car for ride sharing revenue. Please stop it." "Dear Customer - Second warning." "Dear Customer - we have disabled important safety updates for your car, because it looks like you are ride sharing for profit. You might be a real estate agent with irregular driving patterns for legitimate reasons but we cannot confirm that. Sucks t…

I think a couple of things will help alleviate this problem:

If you are a real estate agent with irregular driving patterns, there will be other patterns that are consistent. For example you (and your key fob) always being in the car. You would go from your home/office to several different addresses, then back to home/office.

Also, I'm sure that when tesla sent the warning the best action would be to explain the situation. If that fails, tweet Elon.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#115

Post by jaynos »

grecy wrote: post #82

A few people here have mentioned maybe Telsa just want to stop Uber/Lyft buying a bunch of Telsas and operating an autonomous fleet. My questions is - why would Tesla want to stop them doing that? The goal is to transition the world to sustainable transport, ASAP. If companies are buying tens of thousands of their cars, that's great! I have to wonder if Tesla want to stop this because they want to make the profit fro…

They may want to start their own version of Uber/Lyft or they may just be setting up a scenario in the future where Uber/Lyft would have to enter into a separate purchase agreement with Tesla with changes to warranty terms, roadside assistance terms, price, insurance, etc.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#116

Post by comboy »

tonyhb wrote: post #109
tremon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla. But if that's the case, then I will not pay thousands of dollars to own one.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber. The cut goes to Tesla to reward them for their work in making the hardware and software. That's instead of paying Uber, who fire people by email.

After paying $100K for a car, would you let strangers ride in without any supervision only to earn a few bucks?

Even if there would be no damages, imagine getting your car back to go somewhere with your family and it smells like a bad kind of party.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#117

Post by toomuchtodo »

RUG3Y wrote: post #31
snowwrestler wrote: post #20

The erosion of the concept of "ownership" continues. Traditionally, goods are subject to the first sale doctrine--once I buy a shirt, it's my property, and if I want to sell or rent it, I can. It's mine. But software is licensed. When I buy a piece of software, I'm actually paying for a limited and revokable right to use someone else's property. And now companies are putting software into more and more goods. As soft…

It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.

I'm voting that I don't mind, and buying at least two Model 3s when they're in full production. I support Tesla's decision.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#118

Post by snrplfth »

snowwrestler wrote: post #113
snrplfth wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a car manufacturer telling you that they do not want you handing over control of a vehicle to ridesharing programs that they cannot be sure are compatible with their self-driving systems. Ridesharing programs will literally be giving control inputs to the car, and Tesla has determined that those inputs should come either from licensed drivers or from their own ridesharing program. Because they're not dumb an…

Liability is a crucial area of the law that needs to evolve in response to software. Liability with respect to the operation of physical products is well understood. There are private standards that insurance companies and courts are familiar with (for example: Underwriter Labs, NIST, NSF, ANSI). If your product passes the relevant standard, and a customer causes harm with the product, then you've got a great argumen…

Sure, ideally, I would like to see Tesla open up its self-driving systems to new inputs and modifications, and just disclaim all liability for the consequences. I think it would promote more innovation and novel uses for the software.

However, Tesla is aware that they (and others developing automobile autonomy systems) are under scrutiny, and that, in the eyes of the public, the media, and regulators, they simply cannot divest themselves of liability. This is especially true because of the hazardous nature of cars and the novelty of the technology. They've already been publically embarrassed by having one of their cars hacked into. I do not think they have any appetite for opening up a novel flagship product to unapproved mucking-about, and I cannot honestly blame them. They are covering their asses.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#119

Post by forgottenpass »

tonyhb wrote: post #109
tremon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla. But if that's the case, then I will not pay thousands of dollars to own one.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber. The cut goes to Tesla to reward them for their work in making the hardware and software. That's instead of paying Uber, who fire people by email.

Why? You'll earn the same money as with Uber.

No I won't. It's simple economics that I won't.

Assuming a future where I can choose to rent my car's free time to a ride sharing app. You just told me that I'd be able to make just as much money locked into a single customer as I would if different customers had to compete to rent my car's free time.

And yes blah blah blah I could buy a different type of car. But market forces don't break this sort of monsopoly until "what app can I rent my car's time to" is the TOP purchase differentiator to a very sizable portion of auto buyers.

Re: Revenue from self-driving Teslas only allowed through the Tesla Network

#120

Post by snowwrestler »

snrplfth wrote: post #95
csallen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it's not about Tesla building compatibility into their software. If that was necessary, then they wouldn't need to issue a warning to Teslas owners telling them not to drive for Uber/Lyft. What matters is how Tesla will respond when someone inevitably figures out a way to automate Uber/Lyft rides without needing any help from Tesla. If their response is merely, "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages," then t…

But saying "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages" will not fly with regulators, legislators, public opinion or the integrity of their brand. If someone modifies their Tesla to accept input from Uber, and Tesla does nothing to stop them, and it causes a crash or other problems, then there'll be headlines ("Tesla self-driving car stops in middle of highway!"), technology-ignorant bureaucrats will clamp down on s…

> But saying "Okay, but we're not responsible for damages" will not fly with regulators, legislators, public opinion or the integrity of their brand.

Why not? It flies just fine now with physical goods. If someone hand-builds their own bicycle wheel, and installs it on their bicycle, and then the wheel breaks and they crash... no one is blaming the bike manufacturer. No one is saying "that bike company should have welded the safer wheels on and issued a license prohibiting wheel alterations."

Everyone gets that the customer took the liability in their own hands once they started using their own hands to modify the product. It's the classic trade-off of freedom vs. security.

This ability to allocate liability to the customer is part of what we DO need for software, IMO. Right now there is a popular perception that software cannot be modified or interacted with by anyone but the company who wrote it. I don't think that has to be true forever though.

Post reply on HN