The 21st century equivalent of yanking the governor chip out of the Grand National? Well, OK, not quite.
https://www.thedrive.com/cars-101/39941/what-is-a-buick-gran...
Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
381–390 of 773 posts
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). While I intuitively agree with you, I'm having a hard time arguing against the economic argument in favor it. Producing a single version of a product is generally cheaper than producing two different versions. Also offering a lower-margin,…
Producing the extra weight of the seat heater requires extra fuel to burn. Now multiply that by the number of cars on the road. Will cost the customer a (small) amount extra in fuel costs for a part that is not being used. So there is an economic argument that ya, we can subsidize manufactures by taxing people more. Seems like a bad deal to me. Now lets talk about CO2 output of driving around extra dead weight. Makes…
> Now lets talk about CO2 output of driving around extra dead weight
We're talking about a few grams of extra weight on an ICE vehicle over 1.5 tons, if not even an SUV over two tons. If you put a spare bottle of water in your car you'll most likely have similar dead weight.
Now, I get where you're coming from, but the amount of dead weight this adds is so miniscule compared to the general overhead any modern vehicle carries that making this argument is borderline disingenuous.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's relatively clear to me... Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter. BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. Something like self-driving, where there might be an active in…
If the feature is built in to the car from the factory and disabled via software so they can charge more then you are already paying for the parts and lugging around the added weight in the vehicle thus costing you more in fuel. Software locking a hardware feature that is integrated is an awful practice. Telsa chose to do this presumably to only have to buy a single seat configuration and streamline installs so they…
Right. Instead of manufacturing a 50, 80, and 100 kWh battery pack, and having to go through the whole process of getting certifications and everything for each size, they just make 100 kWh packs all day long, and then software limit them to 50. Which means, in the case of an emergency, the company can bestow extra range on lower-end vehicles, which they did for Hurricane Irma.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/10/16283330/tesla-hurricane-...
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Seems like a great way to get a bunch of people messing with their cars which could lead to all kinds of catastrophic consequences People have always been able to do this with a wrench since before the invention of cars.
I don't think anyone's taking a soldering iron to their on-board computer in a standard ICE vehicle. The fact that tesla has vehicle control code running on it (beyond your typical lane assist) makes this infinitely worse. Or am I missing something? I get that people disagree with these features being locked down and I agree. My point is this isn't like changing a cold air intake in your ICE car. This can have you go…
There's no reason to limit the components people can tinker with to electronics! Everyone is free to (attempt to) replace their brake fluid - or repair the brakes - which can cause disaster at high speeds if not done correctly. I'm yet to hear anyone asking for access to vehicular hydraulics to be locked down in order to protect people from themselves.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's relatively clear to me... Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter. BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. Something like self-driving, where there might be an active in…
Heated seats is essentially a bool somewhere in the code implemented as artificial limitation. Self-Driving is much more complex and abides much more as an argument to your view.
But who gets to decide? Usually the more uneducated a person is of some particular product, the more they think a feature is "just a bool somewhere".
(personally I'm very much on the side of giving people control of their own software and hardware)
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it rent seeking/overreach? I make a video game and charge $50 for it. Later I make a DLC and charge $25 for it. Is your claim that if I keep them as separate purchasable downloads, I'm not rent seeking? But if instead combine the game and dlc into a single executable (to simplify build and distribution) and put the dlc behind a software lock, somehow that is now rent seeking/overreach and I deserve to have hackers…
Even though that is not exactly the issue I refer to, I still say yes, that is my claim, from a moral perspective. If the content is on the disc or shipped as part of the files of the base game, then it should be accessible without additional purchase. Otherwise, you're undercharging for the original deliverable, and overcharging for the actual "downloadable content". Imagine this taken to the logical extreme. I sell…
> Otherwise, you're undercharging for the original deliverable, and overcharging for the actual "downloadable content".
This is called price discrimination and it’s a great thing. You’re talking about under/over charging but that’s absurd: there is no such thing. People pay what something is worth to them.
What you’re advocating for creates actual economic inefficiencies: the people who don’t want the DLC must either pay a higher price, or not make the purchase at all, and the people who would happily pay for the additional DLC now get a net cheaper price, despite a willingness to pay more.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#387Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Producing the extra weight of the seat heater requires extra fuel to burn. Now multiply that by the number of cars on the road. Will cost the customer a (small) amount extra in fuel costs for a part that is not being used. So there is an economic argument that ya, we can subsidize manufactures by taxing people more. Seems like a bad deal to me. Now lets talk about CO2 output of driving around extra dead weight. Makes…
I think the usual "heated seats" example is a poor one, since it's so obviously an optional feature that not everyone would want to hack around. Let's say instead that BMW decided all their car models would be physically 4 seaters, but in order to be allowed to use the back two seats, you had to pay a large monthly "sedan fee". And if they caught you using the back seats without paying, they'd sue you. Would anyone a…
> Would anyone accept this? Likely no.
I wouldn't be so sure, it's all about the price. There's plenty of people that don't have a need for the backseats, and at a certain discount on the purchase price it becomes worth it to have two unusable seats in the back of the car. Think about the extreme case, in which the car is free: there are certainly people that would take that deal.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#389I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.
It's relatively clear to me... Features cost money, so I should pay for them. Wether that's via an option package (traditional) at order time OR via a software update (Tesla) after purchase doesn't matter. BUT! As long as that feature doesn't have recurring costs to the manufacturer (heated seats), it should be a one-time fee, and transfer with ownership. Something like self-driving, where there might be an active in…
> Hacking otherwise reasonable software-locked features feels like theft to me.
I disagree, pretty strongly. There is a line. They sold you something in its entirety, including the seats with wires.
I would agree with you if you had to download the control software from their servers.
I would agree with you if you if the upgrade provided you physical wires to install, even if you had to install them.
Related I think it would be fine to purchase the control software and/or heating wires from a third party that was not tesla and install it in your tesla car.
Re: Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
#390I'm torn. On one hand, I absolutely think that a capability available in the vehicle/device when you purchased it should be available for you to use, and not behind a software lock (heated seats, etc). On the other hand, an "upgrade" or 100% new software delivered via OTA (self driving, etc) seems a little more like it should be a separate thing.
I don't think there's any need to be "torn" on that; you can certainly hold different opinions for different nuances without conflict.
Hardware features that are actually present in the product when purchased should be available for use. If manufacturers want to put those features behind a software lockout, I guess that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't be allowed to complain or punish the customer if they find a way to circumvent it.
Charging for ongoing services that require the manufacturer to spend money to maintain infrastructure (like a remote engine start or remote lock/unlock) seems entirely fair, though.
But as a big fat asterisk to that last statement, it pisses me off that I can't run my own server infra for that myself. I bought a Mercedes E-class a little over a year ago, and it included a free year of their online services. Fortunately continuing the subscription is pretty cheap (something like $150/year). But it's an all-or-nothing deal. I want to be able to do remote lock/unlock and engine start, but I don't want Mercedes tracking my location wherever I go, and I don't care about map updates (since I use Google Maps via Android Auto for navigation).
I would much rather be able to spin up my own server to handle some of the remote capabilities, and not have the car talk to Mercedes' infra at all (except perhaps for software updates, which I would manually approve/accept).
I get why car makers won't do this. Even if they didn't want a stranglehold over providing services, I'm sure they still wouldn't do it: it would require extra "advanced" settings in the car and in the app to allow the customer to set an alternate server backend. And customers will inevitably make security mistakes with their own server backend, which could create liability for the carmaker, or at least cause bad press, even if it shouldn't.