Tesla remotely extends range of vehicles for free in Florida to help owners escape Hurricane Irma - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;52669253]If they only sold it at the default 75 price anyways, then the people who [b]didn't[/b] buy the 75kwh car [b]wouldn't[/b] buy the 75kwh car? Do you see how pointless it is to say this?[/QUOTE] They could have sold the 75kwh car for the price of the 60 since there's no difference other than a software lock.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52669258]They could have sold the 75kwh car for the price of the 60 since there's no difference other than a software lock.[/QUOTE] They could've sold it for $25k, that doesn't mean it's fiscally reasonable. The process for determining the price of a product involves a lot of calculations and speculation, they're not just gonna sell it for a discount just because they can. That defeats the purpose of determining the MSRP in the first place.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52669258]They could have sold the 75kwh car for the price of the 60 since there's no difference other than a software lock.[/QUOTE] They could have sold it for free because there's no difference other than the physical goods and service required to manufacture the car. A bit far but lol seriously are you really this dense? The 60Kwh car that is actually a 75 with a software lock costs much less to produce than an actual 60Kwh car, ergo it's actually in all reality probably much cheaper to the consumer this way and allows them room to get the full potential later if they need it. Same fucking idea with modern Cpus and Gpus, they bin the chips and sell the top performing ones and the lesser ones become lower tier models. Except in this case you're still getting 100% of the top tier product, just with an artificial software lock. Which is literally even better for the consumer really, since their product actually isn't inferior in any way. If we had different architecture behind the i5 and i7 the i5 would cost what an i7 does and the i7 would cost even more than they already do. A gtx1080 wouldn't be a couple hundred more than a 1060, it'd be a couple thousand and the 1060 would be a $700 card. I'm not even a Musk fanboy but jesus you guys are really going to lengths with ignoring critical thinking just to bash on Tesla here. The R&D required to redesign the vehicle for a 60Kwh battery, the increase in production cost because they have to buy more equipment and set up an entirely new production chain in the factories would probably push the 60kwh car to the same price as a 75kwh car, or very close. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't actually understand how the process works.

[QUOTE=AnonymaPizza;52669199]"Other people stab me in the back all the time! It's okay guys."[/QUOTE] I mean yes, for example, iphones could come with the same "Install apps of unknown source" switch as android. It would be cool if console exclusives didn't exist or cross-gamplay was more of a thing. But everyone does stuff like this, and this doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is reaching the end of their Tesla range and thinking "This isnt enough! I want more range for my money!" they're comparable to someone being angry that their VR device doesn't track as good without buying the recommended but optional extra tracking monitor. Okay sure dude, but they're laying the tracks down as they go on this one. Buying that headset or expensive electric car is the only reason they [I]can[/I] make the range better. You think if Tesla and Elon Musk flopped over the range not being far enough that anybody would think the electric car industry has a future and continue to invest in it? There were day 1 iPhone users back in the day that complained about not being able to copy and paste and I laughed because in my mind anybody rich enough to afford an iphone was someone who could afford ten of anything I owned. ..and I had phones that could copy and paste for ages. Obviously this crazy new weird thing was gunna have some kinks and the idea that the most trivial thing could be what sets you off from the coolest thing on the market just seemed hilarious to me. (This gets weird because I use Apple as an example twice, but only in the first case am I comparing their actions to Tesla's. In this one I'm just saying it's a nitpick of a necessary part of the process)

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52669258]They could have sold the 75kwh car for the price of the 60 since there's no difference other than a software lock.[/QUOTE] Tesla (as in real human beings, paid dollars by the hour to think about how to improve battery tech) spends actual, real, tangible dollar bills to further this technology and improve their product. the jump from 60kwh to 75kwh tech isn't free. teslas used to 40kwh before they were 60kwh. do you think that happens on its own? 60 kwh ----> 75kwh costs millions of dollars. the cost to produce 75kwh cars is significantly (thousands of dollars) more expensive than producing 60kwh cars just on its own. the only difference between them selling you a 60kwh car and a 75kwh car software limited to 60kwh at the same price is it's cheaper for them in no way that negatively affects you, lol. you're basically getting mad at tesla for trying to make their cars affordable to the average consumer.

[QUOTE=Leo Leonardo;52669318]They could've sold it for $25k, that doesn't mean it's fiscally reasonable. The process for determining the price of a product involves a lot of calculations and speculation, they're not just gonna sell it for a discount just because they can. That defeats the purpose of determining the MSRP in the first place.[/QUOTE] Nobody is saying they shouldn't sell for a profit or be fiscally reasonable. [QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;52669357]They could have sold it for free because there's no difference other than the physical goods and service required to manufacture the car. A bit far but lol seriously are you really this dense? The 60Kwh car that is actually a 75 with a software lock costs much less to produce than an actual 60Kwh car, ergo it's actually in all reality probably much cheaper to the consumer this way and allows them room to get the full potential later if they need it. Same fucking idea with modern Cpus and Gpus, they bin the chips and sell the top performing ones and the lesser ones become lower tier models. Except in this case you're still getting 100% of the top tier product, just with an artificial software lock. Which is literally even better for the consumer really, since their product actually isn't inferior in any way. If we had different architecture behind the i5 and i7 the i5 would cost what an i7 does and the i7 would cost even more than they already do. A gtx1080 wouldn't be a couple hundred more than a 1060, it'd be a couple thousand and the 1060 would be a $700 card. I'm not even a Musk fanboy but jesus you guys are really going to lengths with ignoring critical thinking just to bash on Tesla here. The R&D required to redesign the vehicle for a 60Kwh battery, the increase in production cost because they have to buy more equipment and set up an entirely new production chain in the factories would probably push the 60kwh car to the same price as a 75kwh car, or very close. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't actually understand how the process works.[/QUOTE] That still doesn't require them to add in a several thousand dollar software lock. I'm not ignoring critical thinking skills. And I'm not just bashing Tesla. I'm bashing any company that does shit like this. The consumer IS paying for hardware that they essentially are being locked out of unless they pay more money. I don't think it's right when anyone does it, and I'm not going to hold back just because it's Tesla. Musk is a great guy, but this is a scummy move. If I buy something, I want to be able to use the entirety of what I bought, not just the features they decide to unlock. [QUOTE=Milkdairy;52669557]Tesla (as in real human beings, paid dollars by the hour to think about how to improve battery tech) spends actual, real, tangible dollar bills to further this technology and improve their product. the jump from 60kwh to 75kwh tech isn't free. teslas used to 40kwh before they were 60kwh. do you think that happens on its own? 60 kwh ----> 75kwh costs millions of dollars. the cost to produce 75kwh cars is significantly (thousands of dollars) more expensive than producing 60kwh cars just on its own. the only difference between them selling you a 60kwh car and a 75kwh car software limited to 60kwh at the same price is it's cheaper for them in no way that negatively affects you, lol. you're basically getting mad at tesla for trying to make their cars affordable to the average consumer.[/QUOTE] If the 60kwh is affordable and has no changes other than a badge and software lock (it doesn't), then they could have already made their cars affordable to the average consumer without even having to make the 60kwh. The batteries aren't different, the cars aren't different. It's just a way to get people to pay $13,000 for the same car. I don't like it when anyone does this. Tesla is not the worst company in the world. But don't pretend that this isn't a shady move that leaves a bad taste in your mouth when it comes to the future of vehicles and how they will be produced and sold. We don't need to get to the point where cars are like video games and come half way done on release with a day 1 DLC that costs you $20,000 more.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52669797]The consumer IS paying for hardware that they essentially are being locked out of unless they pay more money. [/QUOTE] But... you aren't paying for it? You get hardware for free that you can't use until you pay for it.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52669797]Nobody is saying they shouldn't sell for a profit or be fiscally reasonable. That still doesn't require them to add in a several thousand dollar software lock. I'm not ignoring critical thinking skills. And I'm not just bashing Tesla. I'm bashing any company that does shit like this. The consumer IS paying for hardware that they essentially are being locked out of unless they pay more money. I don't think it's right when anyone does it, and I'm not going to hold back just because it's Tesla. Musk is a great guy, but this is a scummy move. If I buy something, I want to be able to use the entirety of what I bought, not just the features they decide to unlock. If the 60kwh is affordable and has no changes other than a badge and software lock (it doesn't), then they could have already made their cars affordable to the average consumer without even having to make the 60kwh. The batteries aren't different, the cars aren't different. It's just a way to get people to pay $13,000 for the same car. I don't like it when anyone does this. Tesla is not the worst company in the world. But don't pretend that this isn't a shady move that leaves a bad taste in your mouth when it comes to the future of vehicles and how they will be produced and sold. We don't need to get to the point where cars are like video games and come half way done on release with a day 1 DLC that costs you $20,000 more.[/QUOTE] So you're saying it's not their fault for making a profit off their product, but it's scummy of them to make a profit off of their product? I don't understand what you're saying they should do. If they sold all of their cars at that low of a price point then that wouldn't be profitable. If they spent money building cars with less powerful batteries to sell at that price point, then that also wouldn't profitable. Do you also think it's scummy for Spotify to make you pay for premium service? All it is is a software lock that prevents you from getting all of the features, isn't it? You should get all of those features for free! Why do you pay for things at all?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52669797]Nobody is saying they shouldn't sell for a profit or be fiscally reasonable. That still doesn't require them to add in a several thousand dollar software lock. I'm not ignoring critical thinking skills. And I'm not just bashing Tesla. I'm bashing any company that does shit like this. The consumer IS paying for hardware that they essentially are being locked out of unless they pay more money. I don't think it's right when anyone does it, and I'm not going to hold back just because it's Tesla. Musk is a great guy, but this is a scummy move. If I buy something, I want to be able to use the entirety of what I bought, not just the features they decide to unlock. If the 60kwh is affordable and has no changes other than a badge and software lock (it doesn't), then they could have already made their cars affordable to the average consumer without even having to make the 60kwh. The batteries aren't different, the cars aren't different. It's just a way to get people to pay $13,000 for the same car. I don't like it when anyone does this. Tesla is not the worst company in the world. But don't pretend that this isn't a shady move that leaves a bad taste in your mouth when it comes to the future of vehicles and how they will be produced and sold. We don't need to get to the point where cars are like video games and come half way done on release with a day 1 DLC that costs you $20,000 more.[/QUOTE] Tesla is barely making margins on these cars, if at all. A report by [URL="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/tesla-second-quarter-earnings-2017.html"]cnbc[/URL] still reports Tesla in the [B]negative[/B] in terms of profits. There is not really a profit margin on these cars. They're [B]expensive[/B] to make and Tesla is actively working to rein in its losses. Again, the "half-made + pricey day-1 dlc" argument falls flat. This is a fully functional, fully featured luxury EV [U]sold at an $8000 discount for a 20% software enforced loss in battery capacity. [/U] they aren't (they can't AFFORD TO) going to lower the price of the 75kwh Model S by 8000 bucks "just cuz they shud" because that would cost them millions of dollars they could otherwise use to make the cars cheaper and better.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;52669983]Tesla is barely making margins on these cars, if at all. A report by [URL="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/02/tesla-second-quarter-earnings-2017.html"]cnbc[/URL] still reports Tesla in the [B]negative[/B] in terms of profits. There is not really a profit margin on these cars. They're [B]expensive[/B] to make and Tesla is actively working to rein in its losses. Again, the "half-made + pricey day-1 dlc" argument falls flat. This is a fully functional, fully featured luxury EV [U]sold at an $8000 discount for a 20% software enforced loss in battery capacity. [/U] they aren't (they can't AFFORD TO) going to lower the price of the 75kwh Model S by 8000 bucks "just cuz they shud" because that would cost them millions of dollars they could otherwise use to make the cars cheaper and better.[/QUOTE] Tesla have some of the best margins in the industry. > 25% margin on the S and X. Expected for the 3 to have similar margins as well as production ramps up.

it's pretty hilarious that there's a load of people in this thread going "Imagine if X had a limit to it that wasn't purely physical" and people responding with "what are you talking about, X frequently has that limit" like, I don't see any problem with this at all, you're not paying for the 75 one, and it gives you an upgrade opportunity.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52667211]I understand why Telsa does it but you can't blame people for not being on board with it. Your getting a car that could be better with just a simple download in its operating system is not the same as getting a worse car that couldnt be upgraded at all. It echos day 1 DLC thats already in the game but you have to pay to "unlock" it. Thats just how alot of people are seeing it. Would be even worse sinces its THOUSANDS of dollars for a software update. Not saying Telsa is in the wrong, just saying how most people would look at it and feel like they are pretty ripped off. I personally want a custom telsa when they finally become affordable but I'd a bit annoyed annoying I wont have the full car battery if I don't pay 3 grand for a software update. It isnt really an battery issue, its must different then smartphone batteries alot of people in this thread is confusing it with, if that was a case then why not make the freature optional AND free? It is clearly a business tactic. Which I dont blame Telsa when you have actual state governments banning your car for no reason(totally not corruption or lobbying related /s). They have to make as much profit as they can.[/QUOTE] Every other car company does this too. If you see two engines with the same displacement, of the same series, but with different power outputs, chances are high that it is a software remap. You're paying a dollar per byte for a piece of software controlling (and limiting) the function of a piece of steel. It's market segmentation, and it is in every industry. For the most part I think it works out in the consumer's favour.

[QUOTE=garychencool;52667851]People are thinking it's something new in the car industry, or in any other but software limitations that get unlocked for paying for the higher tier is in many other product industries out there.[/QUOTE] Just because it is an old scam doesn't mean we should be any more okay with it?

wait so was this basically DLC but for a car?

Telsla may being thinking they're doing something good with this, and they are, but this also exposes them as cheats. Gives me all the more reason to not want electric cars or a car in general with internet capabilities. that said, I hope that anyone who does drive these to escape Florida successfully got out.

The problem here is that what Tesla is doing is absolutely, clearly unfair. It's just that by doing that unfair thing, everyone is arguably better off. There is no world where Tesla sells a 75w car for the price of a 60w car. They reason they are able to sell cars with the 75w battery for the 60w price is because people pay for the range upgrade. The two realities we can choose between are A: Tesla pays more to manufacture two different batteries. People pay slightly more for cars that are more difficult to upgrade and create more waste, but people are able to use what they bought to its full potential. B: Tesla pays less, manufactures one battery. People pay slightly less for cars that are easier to upgrade and create less waste, but you have to pay extra to use them to their full potential. Looking at the situation devoid of context, Tesla is cheating people. Looking at it in context, it's arguable that everyone is benefiting in some way.

Alright. Imagine this if you will. Tesla gets rid of thr 60w altogether and either: Sells them for the price of the 60w, their margins drop, they make no money on the cars, they stop producing because they can no longer afford to. Or They sell them all for the price of the 75w, they make good margins but now a chunk of the customer base can no longer afford it. This isn't new, it isn't really cheating anyone, and is perfectly reasonable in my book.

Tesla also don't sell the 60 kWh version anymore. Any that they get traded in with the software locked battery they upgrade it before selling it on as well. They also somewhat recently slashed the price of the upgrade by about 80% for people.

I am so confused at all the anger at Tesla in this thread. It's not like the consumer didn't know their battery was capped at 60kwh. They BOUGHT IT like that. That's how it was advertised. It was on the website that you could either buy the full 75kwh version or get the one locked at 60kwh for cheaper and then if you want unlock it later. Same goes for the premium features like gps/satnav and the other goodies being installed but not activated. How is that any different from Ford selling a base model f150 w/o power locks, power windows, or cruise control but having all the mounting hardware there and the options turned off in the computer? At least with Tesla's method you don't have to take the car to a dealership and pay exorbitant labor prices on top of the price for the feature you're adding. A good example is my F150. It didn't have cruise control when I got it, so I installed it. I bought the OEM part for it off Amazon. The place it goes already had the mounting hardware and wiring harness in place all I had to do was pop off the cover, slot it in, and plug it in. But then I had to take it to a shop and pay a ford dealer $150 to reprogram the computer to work with the cruise control. The kicker? It was a 1 minute job. Plug in the Ford control panel, go to the "acceleration control" tab in the system menu, and click a little box that says "cruise control present y/n" I would much rather pay $200 for the cruise control and have it be turned on via an over the air mini-update than pay $100 for the module and $150 to some fucking dealership to change a single setting.

[QUOTE=jordguitar;52666129]It is cheaper to make the cars all the same and then sell two different models with a software limitation to get more customers.[/QUOTE] It's a common tactic anymore, too. It's literally cheaper for them to make a bunch of the same item, than to have multiple lines dedicated to their own unique items. You see this in a lot of consumer products too, where the hardware is practically identical and features are soft-ware limited. A popular example would be the Rigol DS1054Z. It's a $400 50MHz oscilloscope, compared to its higher-end version, the 100MHz 1104Z, which costs more than double, but it's possible to enter a key that unlocks not only the 100MHz functionality of the more expensive version, but also all the other features such as on-the-fly translation of serial signals into readable hex values and the like.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52671270]It's a common tactic anymore, too. It's literally cheaper for them to make a bunch of the same item, than to have multiple lines dedicated to their own unique items. You see this in a lot of consumer products too, where the hardware is practically identical and features are soft-ware limited. A popular example would be the Rigol DS1054Z. It's a $400 50MHz oscilloscope, compared to its higher-end version, the 100MHz 1104Z, which costs more than double, but it's possible to enter a key that unlocks not only the 100MHz functionality of the more expensive version, but also all the other features such as on-the-fly translation of serial signals into readable hex values and the like.[/QUOTE] Also the same reason most laptops have the same outer shell year after year. Production is expensive. Why bother making a new shell for each model of laptop when you still have ten million shells from the model you made 10 years ago?

[QUOTE=Morgen;52670061]Tesla have some of the best margins in the industry. > 25% margin on the S and X. Expected for the 3 to have similar margins as well as production ramps up.[/QUOTE] Apologies. I tried to look up data on this beforehand but couldn't find anything conclusive (margins ranging from 15 to 25 iirc and some saying losses) so I assumed it was the cars themselves which were making them lose money. Do you think you could point me to a conclusive, reliable source on Tesla's margins? But eitherway selling a car for 8,000 less retail is still a significant cut into a 25% margin. Silence I Kill You's argument is not reasonable, the profitability of the cars withstanding.

[QUOTE=Milkdairy;52671639]Apologies. I tried to look up data on this beforehand but couldn't find anything conclusive (margins ranging from 15 to 25 iirc and some saying losses) so I assumed it was the cars themselves which were making them lose money. Do you think you could point me to a conclusive, reliable source on Tesla's margins? But eitherway selling a car for 8,000 less retail is still a significant cut into a 25% margin. Silence I Kill You's argument is not reasonable, the profitability of the cars withstanding.[/QUOTE] Tesla's quarterly Investor update letters are the best source. [url]http://ir.tesla.com/common/download/download.cfm?companyid=ABEA-4CW8X0&fileid=952053&filekey=F302D22F-FC9B-41A3-9534-60D0032673CC&filename=TSLA_Update_Letter_2017-2Q.pdf[/url]

If I bought a 600GB hd and then later discovered it was actually a 750GB hd with a software lock also I can pay to upgrade it I would either crack it or pay but either way I'd be happy for the lower initial cost.

[QUOTE=ss1234;52670856]wait so was this basically DLC but for a car?[/QUOTE] With the difference being that DLC is often content that was removed from the game to later sell (making it no longer worth sticker price), while the end user is legitimately not paying the full price for the full features, so they do not get said full features. The alternative is making them all the more expensive one, or cutting the more expensive one from the market entirely since manufacturing two different kinds of ultra-specialty batteries isn't economically feasible.

[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;52666382]Why is software limits so stupid? [/quote] In the context of the range of an electric car every milliwatt hour is critical to converting people, hell, it's part of why I loathe the concept in general. I'm already the last person to walk into a Tesla showroom, but if I were to find myself buying an electric car, it sure as shit wouldn't be a Tesla after hearing of this. Range anxiety is a major dealbreaker for many perspective buyers and they're not gonna want to give you their money when they find out you're intentionally software locking another 40 miles of range out that all the hardware they already paid for can provide just because they can't afford to pay another 10,000 or whatever. [quote]What about Cable TV? What about steam? Just because you could have access to something for “free” doesnt mean that it should be. [/quote] The key difference here is you're not paying for 75kwh worth of batteries in your $50,000+ car when you're using cable TV or Steam. But you do when you buy a Tesla. You're buying a 75kwh battery, it's there in your driveway, you own it, and yet by some arbitrary capitalist dickery you're not able to use all of it. It'd be like buying a brand new Silverado from Chevrolet and only being able to drive it in 4 cylinder mode because you didn't buy the software patch that lets you use all eight pistons that are already sitting in your driveway. That is why it's bullshit. And that's why it doesn't compare to Steam or cable TV in any meaningful way. [quote]It would be more expensive for Tesla to produce even more battery models at the same time, which would cause price to rise.[/quote] Hilariously irrelevant given the very topic of discussion is them software gimping the same battery pack, as in, the hardware is identical between a 60kwh and 75kwh Tesla. [quote] If the cars lifetime was 1 year, then yes, you could argue that the cells were wasted. But when we’re talking 10 years, then there’s a very large chance that the car would be upgraded later in its lifetime. [/quote] Doesn't matter. The cells are in the car already, they should be available for use by the car as the driver requires. There is literally zero excuse for them to do this except pure corporate greed.

[QUOTE=TestECull;52672613]The key difference here is you're not paying for 75kwh worth of batteries in your $50,000+ car when you're using cable TV or Steam. But you do when you buy a Tesla. You're buying a 75kwh battery[/quote] No, you're buying a 60kWh battery. It just happens that it's cheaper to manufacture a higher capacity battery, then software lock it, so you end up getting a physical 75kWh battery instead, with the 60kWh of capacity you purchased available.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52671270]It's a common tactic anymore, too. It's literally cheaper for them to make a bunch of the same item, than to have multiple lines dedicated to their own unique items. You see this in a lot of consumer products too, where the hardware is practically identical and features are soft-ware limited. A popular example would be the Rigol DS1054Z. It's a $400 50MHz oscilloscope, compared to its higher-end version, the 100MHz 1104Z, which costs more than double, but it's possible to enter a key that unlocks not only the 100MHz functionality of the more expensive version, but also all the other features such as on-the-fly translation of serial signals into readable hex values and the like.[/QUOTE] Rigol's kind of a weird example though, in that pretty much the whole community seems to know that you can just overwrite the serial to tell the scope it's an 1104 (and this bug has been present in previous scopes too e.g. 1052E), but companies will still pay for the properly cal'd and certified 100MHz scope so that they don't break the Chain of Accountability

[QUOTE=TestECull;52672613]In the context of the range of an electric car every milliwatt hour is critical to converting people, hell, it's part of why I loathe the concept in general. I'm already the last person to walk into a Tesla showroom, but if I were to find myself buying an electric car, it sure as shit wouldn't be a Tesla after hearing of this. Range anxiety is a major dealbreaker for many perspective buyers and they're not gonna want to give you their money when they find out you're intentionally software locking another 40 miles of range out that all the hardware they already paid for can provide just because they can't afford to pay another 10,000 or whatever. The key difference here is you're not paying for 75kwh worth of batteries in your $50,000+ car when you're using cable TV or Steam. But you do when you buy a Tesla. You're buying a 75kwh battery, it's there in your driveway, you own it, and yet by some arbitrary capitalist dickery you're not able to use all of it. It'd be like buying a brand new Silverado from Chevrolet and only being able to drive it in 4 cylinder mode because you didn't buy the software patch that lets you use all eight pistons that are already sitting in your driveway. That is why it's bullshit. And that's why it doesn't compare to Steam or cable TV in any meaningful way. Hilariously irrelevant given the very topic of discussion is them software gimping the same battery pack, as in, the hardware is identical between a 60kwh and 75kwh Tesla. Doesn't matter. The cells are in the car already, they should be available for use by the car as the driver requires. There is literally zero excuse for them to do this except pure corporate greed.[/QUOTE] You really don't understand. The 75-softlocked-to-60KW model is the same price as the previously sold actually-for-realsies-60KW model. People weren't buying enough of them to justify the cost for more production lines, so they just sold 75KW models offered at a discount, giving people the ability to pay the difference to get the rest of the 40 miles.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;52673116]You really don't understand. The 75-softlocked-to-60KW model is the same price as the previously sold actually-for-realsies-60KW model. People weren't buying enough of them to justify the cost for more production lines, so they just sold 75KW models offered at a discount, giving people the ability to pay the difference to get the rest of the 40 miles.[/QUOTE] Honestly dawg, I don't think there's much left to say here. The remaining "against" arguments in this thread basically boil down to statements similar to: -"this is bad" with no further elaboration -"this is corporate greed, the 75kwh car should just be the cost of the 60kwh anyways" -and stragglers who are still, for some reason saying something along the lines of "this is like a bought a $60 game but 20% of the game was locked behind day 1 dlc" which [U]"for"[/U] posters have had to drone on [U]like skipping CDs[/U] that you aren't [B]paying[/B] for a 75kwh car when you buy the 60kwh soft-locked edition. You're [B] knowingly paying the cost of a 60kwh car[/B] and getting a 75kwh, [B]significantly[/B] more expensive car at the cost of a cheaper car, the tradeoff being you can't utilize the extra power [B]you didn't fuckin pay for[/B] This line of argument is not going to convince someone who believes that the acquisition of profit and remaining competitive in an industry that requires huge amounts of money to stay afloat in is [B]greed.[/B]