Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Software Version 10.0

tesla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 637 posts

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#621

Post by xedeon »

kybernetikos wrote: post #619
xedeon wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It literally records and reports back to HQ. If you ever make any statement that Tesla doesn't like, they will use what should be your own data against you. Wow. Take out the tinfoil hat Sir. I'll PayPal you $1000USD if you can cite this ridiculous claim. > They also restrict the repairability via software. You CAN perform repairs on them, you can even access the parts catalog ( https://epc.teslamotors.com ) for fr…

>> It literally records and reports back to HQ. If you ever make any statement that Tesla doesn't like, they will use what should be your own data against you. > Wow. Take out the tinfoil hat Sir. I'll PayPal you $1000USD if you can cite this ridiculous claim. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/03/the-custo... https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-... about this ridiculously detaile…

The issue with your examples is that it's almost always an irresponsible customer claiming that the car came to life and "moved on its own" or "accelerated by itself". I'd take an official government report or a legal case where Tesla is found at fault or for privacy violations please.

These customers almost always sue, but thankfully the U.S. justice system favors factual information.

A prime example of this was the recently released NTSB data on the Model S driver that crashed on the back of a Firetruck. The media had a field day and sensationalized the story and the owner tried to blame autopilot.

But the NTSB report noted that not only did he had his hands off the wheel he was also having breakfast!:

“I was having a coffee and a bagel. And all I remember, that truck, and then I just saw the boom in my face and that was it,” the driver told NTSB investigators."

Source: https://www.culvercityobserver.com/story/2019/09/05/news/nts...

NTSB Safety Report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HA...

The report states that probable cause was the Tesla driver’s lack of response and inattention and the driver’s use of the system in ways inconsistent with guidance and warnings from the manufacturer.

So tell me, how can Tesla defend itself from such customers who abuse and misuse these 2 ton machines? I'm curious on what you think is the best approach to solve this "he said/she said" problem by not using factual and irrefutable data.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#622

Post by gkfasdfasdf »

kerkeslager wrote: post #355

I want a well-put-together electric car that's completely analog from the user's perspective . There's not a single user-facing digital feature I've ever seen on a car that I wanted, and in fact most of them make things worse. Obviously there's some non-user-facing stuff, i.e. all-wheel-drive, which computerization has revolutionized. But any user-facing stuff is just awful. I want an electric car, but I don't want t…

I felt the same way before I got my Model 3, however I find that I don't really notice the lack of analog controls. I think the virtual keyboard on a smartphone is a good analogy. A tactile, analog button is better but a touchscreen is good enough.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#623

Post by Fins »

xedeon wrote: post #604
Fins wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "insane short interest" in Tesla. Just because Elon might want you to think that it is some nefarious conspiracy and not Tesla's incompetency in many aspects of making a car (pretty much anything pother than making the best available electric powertrain, really) and his personal douchebaggery that are causing problems. That canard about Tesla being the most shorted stock on the planet since the beginning…

> There is no "insane short interest" in Tesla. Just because Elon might want you to think that it is some nefarious conspiracy.... Really? Because Elon said so you think I blindly believe it? What a snooty baseless statement. What is this then? https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/tsla/short-int... Also this: http://shortsqueeze.com/shortinterest/stock/TSLA.htm More: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslainvestorscl…

Yes, please, go on. I am sure you realize that when talking of insane, or otherwise, interest in Tesla, showing numbers for Tesla alone is absolutely useless. According to [0] Tesla doesn't even make it to the top of the second page, and quite a few companies well ahead of it are real large businesses and household names.

Repeating the few tired talking points ("it's the shorts!", "you just didn't drive one", "pecking at 5 buttons in random positions on a touch screen is easier than pressing one physical button") just gives a pretty unflattering impression of Tesla's fans.

[0] http://highshortinterest.com/all

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#624

Post by Fins »

prongletown wrote: post #605
Fins wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why do current Audis have perfectly fine Android Auto integration?

Because Audi views themselves as a performance brand over a luxury brand. They're also hungrier and thus more responsive to consumer demand. BMW allows carplay with a monthly subscription to the rest of their services, largely because they believe that as long as you're getting the full benefit of a connected car, you'll be attached to the value - strategically, it makes no sense for them to give it away from free. T…

I always knew there were good reasons I prefer Audi.

Although to be honest, if not for the unconscionable amount of money they (or Navteq, I guess) asks for map updates, I'd be even happier just using the built-in navigation all the time.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#625

Post by nicoster »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #235
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not a Tesla owner but it does seem to me that buying in to the company that has single handedly changed the landscape of electric vehicles is a pretty exciting notion. I’d be happier to have a vehicle built on seemingly better principles and support the company even if they’re not perfect. But then I use Linux even though it’s difficult at times because what I am using is more important than any specific flaws it…

It occurs to me that I would equate Mac to Tesla and Linux to a car in which you get full access to the engine and are able to change any piece you want. Tesla is the opposite of Linux philosophy.

the big difference is that this 'Linux' is powered by gas.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#626

Post by trca »

kaiwen1 wrote: post #413

The depth and breadth of anti-Tesla sentiment in HN threads is curious. It's rarely from owners. By all satisfaction surveys, owners love their Teslas.

Can confirm: I love my Model 3, wouldn't trade it for the world - including all the feature that "tech-experts" on HN love to complain about such as being locked into a touchscreen with a proprietary OS.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#627

Post by xedeon »

Fins wrote: post #623
xedeon wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no "insane short interest" in Tesla. Just because Elon might want you to think that it is some nefarious conspiracy.... Really? Because Elon said so you think I blindly believe it? What a snooty baseless statement. What is this then? https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/tsla/short-int... Also this: http://shortsqueeze.com/shortinterest/stock/TSLA.htm More: https://www.reddit.com/r/teslainvestorscl…

Yes, please, go on. I am sure you realize that when talking of insane, or otherwise, interest in Tesla, showing numbers for Tesla alone is absolutely useless. According to [0] Tesla doesn't even make it to the top of the second page, and quite a few companies well ahead of it are real large businesses and household names. Repeating the few tired talking points ("it's the shorts!", "you just didn't drive one", "peckin…

> showing numbers for Tesla alone is absolutely useless.

If you don't know how to read financial data, then probably. The site you linked contradicts what you've been whining about... According to it, the current short interest is currently at 29%.. By definition anything above 20% is considered to be extremely high.

Looking at your post history, it's also very clear that you have great disdain not only for Tesla but Elon. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to buy the cars of like the guy. But here you are, shitting on people who love a product.

>Repeating the few tired talking points...just gives a pretty unflattering impression of Tesla's fans.

How is this impacting your daily life? Does it bother you that much that it's making it hard for you to sleep at night? Or do you just get off on spouting anger?

I don't go around telling other people who love a certain product/brand to shut up. Just because you don't like something, others don't have to share the same opinion as you... Even more so, if it's not based on facts but emotion.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#628

Post by xedeon »

rainyMammoth wrote: post #620
xedeon wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not aware, Tesla since the beginning has offered other legacy auto manufacturers unfettered access to the supercharger network if they agree to shoulder the cost. Not a SINGLE one took them up on the offer! https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-elon-musk-open-supe...

This is the same strawman as Apple with the open "Thunderbolt" specs. They open it up and hope other people will adopt it with the goal of profiting Apple that still controls the specs. In addition they can also claim that other players are bad players because they didn't use the "open" specs. That's not how it should work. Other EV makers are doing this correctly with an open consortium. A single brand (Tesla) shoul…

The thing is, the Tesla charging standard predates CCS. Tesla has already deployed and invested on many supercharger stations. The CCS consortium instead of adopting it, instead got together and developed CCS.

The CCS consortium (composed of mainly GM and german manufacturers) is also not without fault... They completely ignored the already established CHAdeMO standard, because it's developed by five major Japanese automakers. But it seems that Tesla gets all the flak, when the reality is the whole industry do not wan't to hash it out.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#629

Post by clouddrover »

xedeon wrote: post #628
rainyMammoth wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same strawman as Apple with the open "Thunderbolt" specs. They open it up and hope other people will adopt it with the goal of profiting Apple that still controls the specs. In addition they can also claim that other players are bad players because they didn't use the "open" specs. That's not how it should work. Other EV makers are doing this correctly with an open consortium. A single brand (Tesla) shoul…

The thing is, the Tesla charging standard predates CCS. Tesla has already deployed and invested on many supercharger stations. The CCS consortium instead of adopting it, instead got together and developed CCS. The CCS consortium (composed of mainly GM and german manufacturers) is also not without fault... They completely ignored the already established CHAdeMO standard, because it's developed by five major Japanese a…

> The thing is, the Tesla charging standard predates CCS.

Yes. Tesla tried to set a standard and they failed. The industry did not adopt it. It's time to move on to CCS.

> Tesla has already deployed and invested on many supercharger stations.

That's not an issue. Tesla doesn't need to start from zero. They can retrofit the chargers for CCS without too much trouble.

Re: Tesla Software Version 10.0

#630

Post by xedeon »

clouddrover wrote: post #629
xedeon wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, the Tesla charging standard predates CCS. Tesla has already deployed and invested on many supercharger stations. The CCS consortium instead of adopting it, instead got together and developed CCS. The CCS consortium (composed of mainly GM and german manufacturers) is also not without fault... They completely ignored the already established CHAdeMO standard, because it's developed by five major Japanese a…

> The thing is, the Tesla charging standard predates CCS. Yes. Tesla tried to set a standard and they failed. The industry did not adopt it. It's time to move on to CCS. > Tesla has already deployed and invested on many supercharger stations. That's not an issue. Tesla doesn't need to start from zero. They can retrofit the chargers for CCS without too much trouble.

> That's not an issue.

Care to elaborate?

> They can retrofit the chargers for CCS without too much trouble.

Do you have experience running a business? That's easy for someone watching from the sidelines to say. But the reality is that something like this have financial and logistical hurdles.

As of Sept this year, there are currently 14,081 individual Supercharger stalls at 1,604 locations worldwide.

Retrofitting all of those is hardly "without too much trouble". That's a fact.

Post reply on HN