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

161–170 of 296 posts

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#161

Post by Silhouette »

thefounder wrote: post #118
Silhouette wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or... We could change the law to make it clear that when you buy some hardware you do own it, and to punish businesses that attempt to abuse their customers with owner-hostile retrospective software changes (to hardware products or otherwise). Consumer rights laws exist, and they can be strengthened if necessary to ensure fairness in the market.

>> We could change the law I think the law will only change for worse. It all starts with the DRM/DMCA.

I'm not from the US, and as an outsider it appears that the US political system is largely dysfunctional at the federal level. I'm afraid solving a problem of that scale is outside the scope of a discussion like this!

However, some parts of the world are more enlightened when it comes to consumer rights. For example, the EU has at least attempted to make constructive regulatory interventions in the interests of consumers as technologies have evolved, even if their success has been mixed. Here in the UK, aside from EU rules we're inheriting after Brexit, we too have some solid basic consumer rights laws of our own. The EU+UK market is already larger than the US one, so that's a pretty big incentive for Tesla not to try those sorts of games around these parts. And if we get reasonable treatment, maybe that's enough for customers in places like the US to demand the same standards.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#162

Post by [deleted] »

vaccinator wrote: post #133
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…

But it is impossible to get a car that is not connected to the internet today, unless you find out how to disconnect it yourself. This near-7-year-old link[0] always make me laugh. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1

[deleted]

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#163

Post by TheSkyHasEyes »

ydlr wrote: post #60

How long until Tesla (or any manufacturer) remotely disables the ignition on all used cars until the new owner pays them to turn it back on. Its only fair. After all, the new owner just bought a hunk of metal from the previous owner. They still need to purchase a license for features like starting the car.

Or how long until death is a result of some remote tweaking..

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#164

Post by black_puppydog »

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…

If use of an object requires an ongoing contractual relationship with a specific entity, you don't own it.

I know that people here won't be super surprised by this concept, but I still think it's worth getting the wording right.

Just as with music and videos and games, I think one should be disallowed from calling something "selling", "buying" or "owning" if what's really being done is "licensing". Yeah, I'm from the "words matter" police. :)

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#165

Post by dmurray »

dogma1138 wrote: post #142
dragosmocrii wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when Tesla issued that paid software update to make your car accelerate 0-100 a 0.1 seconds faster. If the hardware is there unchanged, why should the software update be a paid upgrade? It means the software was not good to begin with. Seems to me Tesla is trying to model a software development business, but they forget they're in the hardware business

On one hand they shouldn’t on another hand “performance modes” are often priced based on the wear and tear they induce and it’s impact on the manufacturer warranty in terms of servicing costs. Even before Tesla you already had car manufacturers that basically locked out performance behind a pay wall even tho the car itself was identical to the “sport model”. Many of the German manufacturers had this practice for a de…

Sounds like once the car is out of warranty and the cost of maintenance falls on the owner, the incentives change and the manufacturer should pay you to run your car in "performance mode".

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#166

Post by TeMPOraL »

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…

Somehow, things work in a sane way with ICE cars and gas stations.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#167

Post by a1369209993 »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #124
simon1573 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the analogy. Tesla manufacturers the whole package and you buy the car as a package. You don't buy the metal from your local car dealer and the software as a separate thing from Tesla. A more fitting analogy would be Apple charging you to upgrade your BIOS.

Except they're selling incomplete software and preorders of may-never-exist software with complete/finished hardware. Updates to things I trust my family's life and health to should be classified like recalls, a sign of manufacturer failure and not a consumer privilege.

> Updates to things I trust my family's life and health to should be classified like recalls, a sign of manufacturer failure and not a consumer privilege.

To be scrupulously fair, that's true of all software; it's just more important for safety-critical software, because safety-critical software is more important.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#168

Post by craftinator »

Silhouette wrote: post #159
dragosmocrii wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember when Tesla issued that paid software update to make your car accelerate 0-100 a 0.1 seconds faster. If the hardware is there unchanged, why should the software update be a paid upgrade? It means the software was not good to begin with. Seems to me Tesla is trying to model a software development business, but they forget they're in the hardware business

It might be helpful to distinguish a few different principles here, as it looks like some people are talking at cross-purposes in this part of the discussion. Personally, I would argue that the most important principle to protect the customer is that they should get what they pay for when they choose to buy a product. That product should not then be retrospectively nerfed through software shenanigans, either for them…

Excellent breakdown!

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#169

Post by jpambrun »

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…

This is nonsense. Chargers should be designed to protect themselves. It a defective car can damage it it's only the charger's manufacturer fault.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#170

Post by noizejoy »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #124
simon1573 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with the analogy. Tesla manufacturers the whole package and you buy the car as a package. You don't buy the metal from your local car dealer and the software as a separate thing from Tesla. A more fitting analogy would be Apple charging you to upgrade your BIOS.

Except they're selling incomplete software and preorders of may-never-exist software with complete/finished hardware. Updates to things I trust my family's life and health to should be classified like recalls, a sign of manufacturer failure and not a consumer privilege.

> Updates to things I trust my family's life and health to should be classified like recalls

But modern luxury cars also feature many components that have little to do with safety.

Post reply on HN