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

81–90 of 213 posts

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

#81

Post by csallen »

StavrosK wrote: post #77
csallen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe it does mean that. I can't deny it. But there's no law of physics stating that grandparents are necessarily wrong about everything. I think there's a strong argument to be made that the world really is better when consumers own instead of rent.

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

#82

Post by grecy »

A few people here have mentioned maybe Telsa just want to stop Uber/Lyft buying a bunch of Telsas and operating an autonomous fleet.

My questions is - why would Tesla want to stop them doing that?

The goal is to transition the world to sustainable transport, ASAP. If companies are buying tens of thousands of their cars, that's great!

I have to wonder if Tesla want to stop this because they want to make the profit from the fleet, or because of legal reasons.

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

#84

Post by jomamaxx »

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…

"Now they come with software and a prohibition against customer modification or repair."

This is not entirely unreasonable, they can probably justify it some way, of course it's probably just a away go guarantee their service contracts.

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

#85

Post by jomamaxx »

RUG3Y wrote: post #31
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 our responsibility to choose and support products that respect our rights and empower us. Vote with your feet.

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

I think you mean 'wallet'.

But it's hard for consumers when as individuals they have little choice.

Mobile OSs come in 2 flavours. Wherein there is lack of competition, it's nary impossible for consumers to 'vote with their wallets' because there's few other places they can go.

I think this might call for some intelligent regulation.

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

#86

Post by snrplfth »

csallen wrote: post #81
StavrosK wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe it does mean that. I can't deny it. But there's no law of physics stating that grandparents are necessarily wrong about everything. I think there's a strong argument to be made that the world really is better when consumers own instead of rent.

I just don't see how this is not ownership. You aren't renting, you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a ridesharing app that feeds bad inputs to it?

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

#88

Post by Jugurtha »

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…

I agree and slightly point out a difference: John Deere tells you what you can't do to your tractor; Tesla Motors tells you what you can't do with your car, which is way worse as the forbidden use is not even diverting the primary use of the car in a way that would cause damages they wouldn't be willing to fix or something.

Basically, it's a car manufacturer telling you you can't drive certain people for a certain reason from and to certain places. This is way more invasive than a lot of what I have seen, and I live in an ex socialist country where the military/intelligence powers have more influence than the political.

I would understand this if they had something like a SIM lock where a carrier sells you a phone at a loss and forces you to use their SIM, but Tesla owners are paying the full amount. To be blunt: if we're in a brothel and you're not paying, you have no business telling me with whom to go upstairs.

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

#89

Post by snrplfth »

Jugurtha wrote: post #88
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…

I agree and slightly point out a difference: John Deere tells you what you can't do to your tractor; Tesla Motors tells you what you can't do with your car, which is way worse as the forbidden use is not even diverting the primary use of the car in a way that would cause damages they wouldn't be willing to fix or something. Basically, it's a car manufacturer telling you you can't drive certain people for a certain re…

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 and they know that if a malfunctioning Uber or Lyft app causes a Tesla to get into an accident, they'll probably be held liable anyways.

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

#90

Post by lucideer »

snrplfth wrote: post #86
csallen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it does mean that. I can't deny it. But there's no law of physics stating that grandparents are necessarily wrong about everything. I think there's a strong argument to be made that the world really is better when consumers own instead of rent.

I just don't see how this is not ownership. You aren't renting, you're paying a standard purchase price for a good which has some restrictions on its use. Do you think that Tesla should have to make sure that its self-driving software is compatible with every ridesharing app that any random person comes up with? How will that work with liability if somebody sends their self-driving Tesla out to work under a rideshari…

I think this really gets to the crux of the conditions that motivate and lead to this sort of product culture: a litigious society.

If people feel its desirable to combat this trend, they need to be willing to take more legal responsibility for how they choose to use their products. Otherwise, compromising on full unrestricted ownership is the price paid to cover manufacturers' insurance costs.

Note: this isn't absolute - there are many cases of corporations simply abusing this outright, like snowwrestler's Amazon example - but it's certainly the case for Tesla and a lot of others.

Post reply on HN