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

181–190 of 213 posts

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

#181

Post by deelowe »

calvinbhai wrote: post #72

I had a similar reaction (as in the article) when I read the Tesla feature explanation initially. But, later I realized Tesla is not overstepping the boundary. Here's why I think so: Tesla is setting the correct expectations. Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla. So, if you own the car, and but are not needing the car to be used for a week…

In this fictitious world you're describing, I should not be paying full prices for the car. Instead it should be more of a rental agreement, which I'd be totally fine with. However, if I'm paying $100k for a vehicle, it should be mine to do what I want with (within the bounds of the law).

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

#183

Post by snrplfth »

csallen wrote: post #180
snrplfth wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Allowing self-driving-for-revenue via the Tesla Network but not via Uber is absolutely no different than Internet Explorer allowing Bing but blocking Google.

No, because you can still get to all destinations, but you can't use it for certain tasks. Tesla has understandable reasons why they don't want self-driving capability used on alternate revenue-generating networks. You may disagree with them, but it doesn't mean that these reasons would ever lead them to block off physical locations.

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

#184

Post by erikpukinskis »

csallen wrote: post #65
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 very important to realize that this is a problem that our generation will have to fix, or it will never be fixed. To us, this seems completely unnatural, because we've spent so many years in a world where this type of tech could be truly "owned." However, future generations born in the world of today will be totally accustomed to renting/licensing everything. They won't have the same fiery indignation that we do…

The next generation already has a sense that the concept of "ownership" is colonialistic and often unethical. Does Nestle have a right to the world's water? Does IKEA Shellmound have the rights to an ancient native American spiritual site? Does Tesla have a right to the world's battery supply? Does Trump have a right to New York real estate? Does Putin have a right to Crimea? Does Kim Jong In have a right to North Korea?

Obviously the answers to these questions vary, but few people will answer "Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, always, if you could get a deed to the Earth you could feed us all to the dogs".

And the new generations believe in the sacred rights of the capital class less and less.

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

#185

Post by snrplfth »

EdHominem wrote: post #174
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…

That's not true though. The app isn't going to crank the steering wheel around, it's going to input a destination. Their lies don't become any more compelling when you repeat them.

Yes, by control inputs I meant destinations and probably routes as well, depending on how the self-driving program works.

Maybe instead of asserting that I'm "repeating lies" you could ask whether I mean what you think I mean.

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

#186

Post by EdHominem »

DanBC wrote: post #164
pault wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If Uber buys a car, why should the manufacturer get to dictate what they do with it? I don't see how it's any different than the consumer use case.

The manufacturer provides a guarantee. That guarantee is based on expected uses. If the buyer uses the product well outside the expected use should they be covered by the same guarantee?

You can't disclaim warranties for no reason, or for normal use.

Unless they show that Uber is routing the cars over speedbumps at high speed or something, there's no reason to think that there'll be excessive wear beyond the simple distance covered.

They can walk-back their unlimited mileage warranty, if they want. But not selectively for arbitrary usages.

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

#187

Post by mamurphy »

uptown wrote: post #24
awesomerobot wrote: post #5

A venn diagram with two circles that don't intersect: "Can afford a Tesla" "Wants to drive for Uber"

This guy tried it: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-uber-driver-picks-you-...

The bed-in-the back configuration he set up is pretty nifty. I wish more cars had back seats that would fold forward to allow that (or for carrying heavy loads).

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

#188

Post by nsgi »

csallen wrote: post #104
snrplfth wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We're not talking about modifying the self-driving algorithms. I assume those are a totally closed black box. We're merely talking about inputting destination addresses. What Tesla is saying with this no-Uber rule is, "This is where you can and cannot go." What happens when they, say, strike a deal with McDonald's and ban drivers from going to Burger King locations? It sounds far-fetched, but I don't see any differen…

What happens when Google strike a deal with McDonalds and prevent Google Maps from giving people directions to Burger King locations?

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

#189

Post by awqrre »

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…

We are going to need free open software for our cars...

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

#190

Post by serge2k »

> While this is the first instance we can think of where a car company has preemptively banned its customers from using their vehicles for a specific use, post-sale conditions imposed by car companies are not entirely unheard of. Ferrari, for example, has been known to insist that customers buying its most expensive cars (like the Enzo or LaFerrari) promise not to resell them before a certain point, and the Italian sports car maker also famously disliked the way one of its high-profile customers had his car wrapped.

Right, but isn't the penalty for going against Ferrari merely that they will refuse to sell to you in the future? The deadmau5 thing was about the "purrari" stuff, not the crazy nylon wrap.

Tesla is attempting to do something far worse.

Post reply on HN