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

71–80 of 213 posts

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

#71

Post by tremon »

snowwrestler wrote: post #41
RUG3Y wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.

I don't think voting with dollars will do much on its own, for two reasons. 1) Goods powered by software are frequently much better than goods without. I mean, compare a phone with software vs. without. Compare a car with software vs. without. Which one would you rather have? 2) Entire industries are converting to software-based capability. Speaking of phones and cars, try to find a new one these days without softwar…

I think we have to adjust, as a society.

Or, we start demanding that software, when purchased as part of a physical device, does not reduce the rights customers have to their physical device.

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

#72

Post by calvinbhai »

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, the car becomes available on the Ridesharing Autonomous Network of Teslas (RANT :). At that point, it makes no sense to put the car on something like say Google / Uber autonomous networks of Ridesharing.

Its a bit like how iPhone is not open for non app store downloads and yet an iPhone buyer 'owns' the phone.

FWIW, every autonomous car maker will put their car on their own rideshare network (making a rider app is 1% of creating the ridesharing service effort). Uber and Lyft apps will become too expensive to use if they cannot figure out the autonomous vehicle part of the equation.

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

#73

Post by tremon »

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…

Once the car is fully autonomous, the process of dispatching rides to a pickup location will be controlled by Tesla.

But if that's the case, then I will not pay thousands of dollars to own one.

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

#74

Post by qb45 »

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…

> 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.

OK, but how are they actually doing it? What kind of papers do they have to make such demands?

I naively believe that if I just "buy a car", it is the vendor's obligation to ensure that "the car" includes a perpetual and irrevocable license to use for any purpose all of the 1st and/or 3rd party software required for the operation of the hardware. I am buying a functional car and I don't care how it's made inside, it simply must work and be legal to use in any way one would use a car.

Or is it customary nowadays that buying a car involves separately (even if from the same vendor) purchasing hardware and licensing software for it, on two different pieces of paper?

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

#75

Post by jmcdiesel »

snowwrestler wrote: post #41
RUG3Y wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.

I don't think voting with dollars will do much on its own, for two reasons. 1) Goods powered by software are frequently much better than goods without. I mean, compare a phone with software vs. without. Compare a car with software vs. without. Which one would you rather have? 2) Entire industries are converting to software-based capability. Speaking of phones and cars, try to find a new one these days without softwar…

"Speaking of phones and cars, try to find a new one these days without software in it."

Im not saying its hard to find them yet, but at this point 2 out of 3 toasters at my local grocery store have software in them - simple software, not connected, but software nonetheless, in a device that needs none, a device that has worked mechanically for decades with no issue... Everything is going that way though, becuase its easier to design something with software rather than figuring out how to make a piece of machinery make a decision mechanically - it easier to just use sensors and software...

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

#76

Post by Avshalom »

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…

This is why copyleft is necessary, it maintains traditional ownership rights with legal possession

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

#77

Post by StavrosK »

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…

If the next generation will be fine with it, why fix it? Doesn't that just mean that we're our grandfathers, clinging to "the good old days" when we could own stuff?

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

#78

Post by StavrosK »

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…

It'll probably be called the Tesla Autonomous Ridesharing Network, though. TARN.

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

#79

Post by anexprogrammer »

snowwrestler wrote: post #41
RUG3Y wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.

I don't think voting with dollars will do much on its own, for two reasons. 1) Goods powered by software are frequently much better than goods without. I mean, compare a phone with software vs. without. Compare a car with software vs. without. Which one would you rather have? 2) Entire industries are converting to software-based capability. Speaking of phones and cars, try to find a new one these days without softwar…

It's not a matter of whether there is software or not. If it were you'd be going back to the 80s to find anything before fuel injection and third party chips. Now we can't modify playstations etc - because of IP laws not software.

It's an issue of patent, copyright and rent seeking. We are so far down that rabbit hole globally, and governments have given far too much for it to be recoverable. Who do I vote for to get wholesale scaling back of IP law? What do I do knowing there's unlikely to be candidates promoting this stance?

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

#80

Post by jmcdiesel »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #51

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 you shouldn't buy any newer model car. Its still the question of the software... you may own the metal, but the software is licensed
Post reply on HN