171–180 of 213 posts
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…
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…
Warning: you pay for someone else's effects of work, but it's still too early to call software property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software that vehicle purchasers have licensed for use in a vehicle that they ostensibly own. This is just the Apple iOS walled garden again. "If you want to make money using our car, we get a cut".
A license you agreed to at purchase. Don't like it, don't buy it. And I like my iPhone walled garden just fine.
When our government catches up with the idea that if it looks like a purchase, it is a purchase, we'll re-evaluate that decision.
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…
Their lies don't become any more compelling when you repeat them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've received these as well, but it's always been "Hey, it's been 6 months since your last oil change with us -- come on in!" I could very easily see if you go to the same mechanic and they input your mileage between visits and a system having a reasonable chance of getting scheduled maintenance correct based upon time or average mileage. I've never heard of a company pulling data from a car OTA to do this type of wo…
Many high-end cars have embedded cellular connections, in 2015 Miller and Valasek managed to crack into Jeep's, jump the airgap and take control of the car over the OTA reporting connection: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-hig... No idea if that's the case with Toyota, but it's definitely possible with some high-end cars (most definitely including Teslas which routinely report to the mothersh…
Based on that, I'd say anyone who is injured because of this in any way has a great claim against the company for lying about the equipment they provided.
We pretty much were set on getting a Tesla next year. The fact that they can ban me from doing whatever I want has effectively stopped me from purchasing a Tesla. Not that I plan on doing car-sharing, but I refuse to spend so much money on something that I don't actually "own".
Then are you going to avoid basically every newer model vehicle? They all have the same TOS wrt software.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can't go a store, buy a DVD for $15 and then charge tickets to project to an audience. Maybe this model is actually bad because it circumvents the first sale doctrine, and we need to make this kind of restriction one illegal (haha, in my dreams).
I'm not defending the model, I'm just saying how it is now.
Further, such a doctrine would allow you to buy the Tesla and remove the software they didn't want to license to you.
So no, that isn't how it is - that's how they want you to think it works so you don't even bother trying.
Go ask a lawyer for a clear-cut answer on anything.
Wow. Key statement here: " but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year." Tesla Network? Uber/Lyft competitor? Plus I sure hope this won't hold up in court. I do not want a company telling me how to use my product that I paid for.
> I do not want a company telling me how to use my product that I paid for. I'm not defending Tesla here, I just want to draw an analogy. You can't go a store, buy a DVD for $15 and then charge tickets to project to an audience. You need a different, more expensive license for that. The same applies to music and software, even if it is embedded firmware in a car.
Of course this is easy to fix, but it would still result in either forbidding commercial use (without license) or metered supercharging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a facile example. You still own your house, but the government, as elected by the people, has decided that one of the ways to encourage/ enforce property tax payment is the right to use said property as collateral. You explicitly agree that you are obligated to do so, and laws, which aren't secret, divulge the possible consequences of failure to do so. This in no way diminishes ownership, any more than you par…
I have not signed nor agreed on any such a thing. I got house from my grandpa who build it on his own land. So if anything I am forced into either paying the property tax or facing penalty of having my house closed down and put for bid. Call it anything but, please don't call it an ownership.
You are, I suspect deliberately, attempting to obfuscate the issue of ownership. Here are some examples:
- you legally own a gun. you use gun in commission of a crime. gun will be confiscated.
- you legally own a vehicle. you use it in commission of a crime (whether as a getaway vehicle, or striking a pedestrian). car can be confiscated.
Whether you think they SHOULD be or not, not paying taxes is considered a crime.
That doesn't mean your ownership of the house, the car, the gun are any less valid, only that the government has determined that possible confiscation of said property is a viable punishment for violation of certain laws.
If you want to carry that to the extreme - you own nothing, because the government can confiscate it.
Which makes me wonder how your grandpa "owned" that land? How did he acquire it?
You didn't sign or agree to obey the laws of the city, county, state or country you live in either.
I presume that also means you are not beholden to those, either?
As I said, I suspect this is a rabbit hole of twisted reasoning and logic that I don't overly care to get into, but the simple fact remains. Ownership of any object is tangential to the potential of being deprived of possession thereof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But even just inputting destination addresses has its problems. What happens when an Uber-like app freaks out and spams the self-driving algos with a hundred destinations a second? If Tesla's APIs can't handle input spam, that's on them. That's a very predictable and easily-solved problem. The entire point of an API is to expose a limited surface area so that you can easily interoperate while maintaining control an…
> If Tesla's APIs can't handle input spam, that's on them. That's a very predictable and easily-solved problem. The entire point of an API is to expose a limited surface area so that you can easily interoperate while maintaining control and responsibility. Sure, it's on them, and it appears they've solved that problem by cutting out other apps entirely. Certainly I'd prefer it if they would let people experiment with…