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

181–190 of 296 posts

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#181

Post by kccqzy »

kccqzy wrote: post #100
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

How is this different from any other paid software upgrades? You pay to get better features.

I can't edit my comment now but it seems like HN thinks once you buy a CPU, you should get all software for free, because that general-purpose CPU can execute any arbitrary programs, so whatever new software you use is merely exercising the functionality that is already present on the CPU, which you paid for. Ergo, all software must be free (free as in beer).

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#182

Post by perlgeek »

KMnO4 wrote: post #5

Maybe Tesla should link these features to a user's account, not the vehicle. If I sell my iPhone, I'm not selling the apps that I have installed on it. A side effect of this approach is that you could get a new Tesla and log in to activate the features you already paid for. If you crash your Model 3 and insurance buys you a new one, should you have to pay for Autopilot again? That said, that approach may piss off peo…

> That said, that approach may piss off people as well. Imagine paying $50k for a Tesla, and only being able to get $30k when you sell it because you paid $20k for features that won't transfer over to the new owner. Even worse if your new car isn't a Tesla: that money would be lost.

There's an easy fix for that: add the option to transfer the Autopilot to another account. Then you can sell off the Autopilot as well.

Given, of course, Tesla being willing to allow that, or if not, sufficiently consumer-friendly legislation.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#183

Post by ma2rten »

black_puppydog wrote: post #164
judge2020 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about buying a house that is part of a HOA?

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#184

Post by donarb »

jiofih wrote: post #177
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.

Apple does charge you to upgrade the OS.

Apple does not charge for OS upgrades.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#185

Post by hedora »

ma2rten wrote: post #183
black_puppydog wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about buying a house that is part of a HOA?

I think HOAs are a scam. We recently bought a house, and simply didn’t consider anything with an HOA fee (we made exceptions and considered arrangements where the HOA was limited to private road maintenance).

I doubt we’re the only ones; the HOA depresses the price of the house.

In my mind, a house + HOA = condo, regardless of whether it shares a wall with someone else, and we’d pay accordingly (50-66% as much, tops).

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#186

Post by paulryanrogers »

noizejoy wrote: post #170
paulryanrogers wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If insignificant accessories are properly isolated then I suppose such 'updates' can just be optional patches. But if a media center bug means someone can cause my car to break hard or swerve then even those should be classified as recalls.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#187

Post by stefan_ »

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…

As others have explained, once car and charger have done their handshake, charging is about as complicated as a toaster oven and there isn't really anything the car could do to damage the charger.

And as you have correctly discovered, cars catching on fire is a very regular event that is covered by insurance. Does your supermarket make you sign a liability waiver every time you drive onto their parking lot? No, we have mandatory insurance and other higher-level concepts to do away with all of this overhead that we would otherwise incur doing the most trivial of "transactions".

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#188

Post by dundarious »

Shivetya wrote: post #178
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…

I will be blunt, I really wish "salvage" cars had no right to exist. There is insufficient consistency between states as to what can be titled as such and still driven on our roads. You can get on the road most of the time just fixing cosmetic items and inspection in some states more concerned with emissions than much else; some states don't even check for working ABS or airbags. I think companies like Tesla are corr…

The article claims that many cars are declared "salvage" merely due to Tesla's expensive repairs, which they claim is caused by their (unique?) restrictions on parts availability. As such, Tesla would arguably be responsible for the fact that the cars are "salvage" in the first place.

I'm strongly in favor of greater re-use of these enormous machines that require intense capital investment, and valuable and limited resources to create.

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#189

Post by semi-extrinsic »

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia_Duster

This thing is definitely not internet connected. The basic trim does not even feature a radio at all, only standard space to fit a 1-DIN radio yourself. It has manual (roll down) rear windows.

I don't know about the US, but I would be surprised if you can't buy an F150 that has no internet connection?

Re: Jailbreaking Used Teslas

#190

Post by MPSimmons »

I would be a lot more okay with them removing FSD from cars being sold if the FSD transferred to the next Tesla you bought, like a license to have the feature.

That isn't the case, though. I paid for FSD on my model 3. If I trade it in for a Model Y, I don't get to transfer my purchase, but you know that they're going to charge someone else to enable FSD on that vehicle. It's double-dipping.

Post reply on HN