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

The only time the locks on your hardware are really ethical is when it comes to quality control. This happens with computer hardware a lot, several AMD and Intel chips will be quite literally the same, but are cut into different series depending on how well binned they came out. Batteries pretty much do as they're rated and built for though iirc, so this doesn't apply. This Tesla shit is pretty much a disgustingly flagrant display that you don't actually own your car.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673296]The only time the locks on your hardware are really ethical is when it comes to quality control. This happens with computer hardware a lot, several AMD and Intel chips will be quite literally the same, but are cut into different series depending on how well binned they came out. Batteries pretty much do as they're rated and built for though iirc, so this doesn't apply. This Tesla shit is pretty much a disgustingly flagrant display that you don't actually own your car.[/QUOTE] You pay 5$ for a 32GB hard flash drive. You are happy. You learn that this flash drive is actually a 64GB flash drive that's been gimped with software because they overproduced that model, so it made economic sense. You are now angry. Why?

[QUOTE=phygon;52673425]You pay 5$ for a 32GB hard flash drive. You are happy. You learn that this flash drive is actually a 64GB flash drive that's been gimped with software because they overproduced that model, so it made economic sense. You are now angry. Why?[/QUOTE] Because there's 32GB of physical flash memory gone to waste because of their profit margins and software lock-down. Software locks are already used in agriculture all of the time already to fuck farmers. Tesla might be doing things pretty modestly, and the price drop they later gave is nice, but these business practices should be regarded with a high level of suspicion.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673466]Because there's 32GB of physical flash memory gone to waste because of their profit margins and software lock-down. Software locks are already used in agriculture all of the time already to fuck farmers. Tesla might be doing things pretty modestly, and the price drop they later gave is nice, but these business practices should be regarded with a high level of suspicion.[/QUOTE] Yeah but why are you [I]mad[/I] It's still a good deal. The other option was to package and sell them as bigger, more expensive flash drives, making the 16gb one now cost 7 dollars because they weren't able to make as many of them. Are you getting what I'm getting at? The cheaper one wouldn't exist if they weren't allowed to software lock it because not enough people bought them.

You're buying a better car for less price. Running your battery out isn't good. A little margin is healthy. If you want more power you can upgrade later on. What's wrong with it? This wasn't some big secret prior to this. Pay attention to what you're buying. The 60 wasn't that much of a seller, anyway. [editline]12th September 2017[/editline] It would be different if [I]all[/I] Teslas came with like, a 100 kwh battery and each model was limited to 60/75/95/100. This was just one model that they don't even sell anymore. [editline]12th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673466]Because there's 32GB of physical flash memory gone to waste because of their profit margins and software lock-down. Software locks are already used in agriculture all of the time already to fuck farmers. Tesla might be doing things pretty modestly, and the price drop they later gave is nice, but these business practices should be regarded with a high level of suspicion.[/QUOTE] Pay attention to what you are buying. This wasn't a secret or hidden feature.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52673466]Because there's 32GB of physical flash memory gone to waste because of their profit margins and software lock-down. Software locks are already used in agriculture all of the time already to fuck farmers. Tesla might be doing things pretty modestly, and the price drop they later gave is nice, but these business practices should be regarded with a high level of suspicion.[/QUOTE] Except its not going to waste. Arguably these software locked 75kwh packs will be healthier in the long run than actual 60kwh packs since you won't able to fully discharge the pack(or fully charge, can't remember which one tesla does). It's more like buying a 32gb flash drive and finding out its actually a 64gb flash drive, with the extra 32gb used for overprovisioning.

They don't have to make two batteries, just have other improved features in the more expensive model. You know, real ones

I think every body forgets what the whole purpose of the Model S was supposed to be...

Jesus christ why are y'all still harping on about this being "bad" somehow? Let's make it real fucking simple. Tesla sells 2 products. A 60kwh car and a 75kwh car. The 60kwh car is an "economy" model and costs $40,000 The 75kwh car is a "premium" model and costs $45,000 When you buy the 60kwh model Tesla TELLS YOU FLAT OUT "this car has the 75kwh battery and is software locked to the 60kwh you paid for b/c this is cheaper than making a different battery. If you want to upgrade in the future you can buy it and it'll be upgraded over the air automatically for $5000". Scenario 2: Tesla maintains the production line for the 60kwh battery, increasing the cost of the vehicle. Prices now look like this: 60kwh: $42,500 75kwh: $45,000 Except now to upgrade your battery you have to take your car to a Tesla service station. The battery is $5000, they give 50% off when you trade in your 60kwh battery, and installation costs $1500. Congratulations now your 60kwh to 75kwh Tesla costs $46,500. WHY ARE YOU UPSET

Any criticism against Tesla that I'm seeing in this thread is some barely coherent "ethical" argument against having software-limited product, even though Tesla's method is actually [I]beneficial [/I] to the consumer since they buy a car for cheaper with the option to upgrade easily instead of having to either go to a dealership and pay them tons of money to physically upgrade your car or buying an entirely new car for several tens of thousands of dollars. The consumer has[I] zero downside[/I] in Tesla's model.

Look, I'm all for electric cars and technology, but all these unnecessary firmware update make me think they have way too much control over the cars. I hope one of the other electric car goes for a more traditional design. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;52686808]Jesus christ why are y'all still harping on about this being "bad" somehow?[/QUOTE]Y'all? Are you from the deep south? Y'all come back now.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52686881]Look, I'm all for electric cars and technology, but all these unnecessary firmware update make me think they have way too much control over the cars. I hope one of the other electric car goes for a more traditional design.[/QUOTE] I too hate it when my car gets better over night for free.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52686884]I too hate it when my car gets better over night for free.[/QUOTE]It doesn't always get better, sometimes it doesn't need an update. There should be more user control over the car. I'd love a switch to disable it's internet connection and activate break peddle override.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52686885]It doesn't always get better, sometimes it doesn't need an update. There should be more user control over the car. I'd love a switch to disable it's internet connection and activate break peddle override.[/QUOTE] You're gonna need to run me by the times that a Tesla has had a firmware update and actively gotten worse. As far as I recall no such thing has happened. They've been pushing out optimisations pretty consistently. There is no such thing as a "traditional design" with cars like these because they by definition do not fit "traditional" designs. For an electric car to work at all it needs quite a complex software suite. Should a bug be found in that I sure as shit wouldn't trust the users to manually update the software or take it to a dealership in time, especially if it's something that actively makes the car a danger to others around them. I barely trust most people to do the same with an ICE, because most people just don't give a fuck about things like recalls or maintenance. A car having the ability to be patched without user intervention is a massive leap forward in users not being useless.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52687154]You're gonna need to run me by the times that a Tesla has had a firmware update and actively gotten worse. As far as I recall no such thing has happened. They've been pushing out optimisations pretty consistently. There is no such thing as a "traditional design" with cars like these because they by definition do not fit "traditional" designs. For an electric car to work at all it needs quite a complex software suite. Should a bug be found in that I sure as shit wouldn't trust the users to manually update the software or take it to a dealership in time, especially if it's something that actively makes the car a danger to others around them. I barely trust most people to do the same with an ICE, because most people just don't give a fuck about things like recalls or maintenance. A car having the ability to be patched without user intervention is a massive leap forward in users not being useless.[/QUOTE]Ok, I drive a petrol because I'm not a genius with a million dollar business, but anyway, my car doesn't need any firmware updates get's me from A to B just fine. I sure as fuck don't want to get in my car the next and find that I'm going to be late for work because it's updating firmware, I don't want my car to get a bug in the system. Electric cars don't need to be updated at all, the last thing I want is the manufacturer with their hand up my car's ass controlling it and making it how "they" want it to be. I mean Tesla purposefully disable things that the customer wants, they make tweaks here and there. Your perspective on this is unusual, I'll say that because there is this thing called a product recall, in which the customer 'must' return a product if it's a danger to other people. In that situation a user can be ordered to to update the car fine, but I don't want to have features gimped because the board of the company decides how I should use my car. That and fly by wire isn't exactly free of risk or hack proof. This article is proof enough of that the board of Tesla can do whatever the fuck they want with 'your' car. Just because a car is electric doesn't mean it needs complex software to run or that said software needs updates each month. I mean fuck, they've been making electric since long before the age of the microprocessor.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52687194]Just because a car is electric doesn't mean it needs complex software to run[/QUOTE] (it kinda does if you want the car to have any semblance of quality, this is true of modern ICEs too) [QUOTE=RoboChimp;52687194]Ok, I drive a petrol because I'm not a genius with a million dollar business, but anyway, my car doesn't need any firmware updates get's me from A to B just fine. I sure as fuck don't want to get in my car the next and find that I'm going to be late for work because it's updating firmware, I don't want my car to get a bug in the system. Electric cars don't need to be updated at all, the last thing I want is the manufacturer with their hand up my car's ass controlling it and making it how "they" want it to be. I mean Tesla purposefully disable things that the customer wants, they make tweaks here and there. Your perspective on this is unusual, I'll say that because there is this thing called a product recall, in which the customer 'must' return a product if it's a danger to other people. In that situation a user can be ordered to to update the car fine, but I don't want to have features gimped because the board of the company decides how I should use my car. That and fly by wire isn't exactly free of risk or hack proof. This article is proof enough of that the board of Tesla can do whatever the fuck they want with 'your' car. Just because a car is electric doesn't mean it needs complex software to run or that said software needs updates each month. I mean fuck, they've been making electric since long before the age of the microprocessor.[/QUOTE] Your car isn't going to be updating in the morning when you're heading to work. I'm sure as shit the guys at any given car company had the foresight to think "huh may-b we not update at 7am lol". Shit, we've had the ability to specify update schedules for computers since forever, that's almost certainly something you can do (having not been in a Tesla myself I can't confirm it with first-hand experience. But it's an obvious feature). Again, what have Tesla disabled that a customer has wanted exactly? You didn't specify this despite it being something you brought up in your previous post that I then asked you to expand on. So what is it they've disabled? And no, while an electric car doesn't [I]need[/I] to update, the ability to do so to optimise the drivetrain and generally improve the software to fix critical bugs and improve the performance or user experience of the dashboard is a massive boon to the car. Via updates Tesla have managed to make their cars both faster, more responsive and much more energy efficient. The car is still the exact same car you bought, but [I]better[/I], you still have all the control over it you did before but now the car operates [I]better[/I]. I'm sure the second they do something actually negative people will point it out. Thus far the haven't, because they know their cars are too expensive to get away with that shit. And sure you could implement a recall to force a firmware update (this happens to your modern ICE too today if you take it in to a service at the manufacturer and there happens to be an update! ICE ECUs are just as susceptible to updates as the Tesla "ECU"). But again, not everyone listens to those.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52686881]Look, I'm all for electric cars and technology, but all these unnecessary firmware update make me think they have way too much control over the cars. I hope one of the other electric car goes for a more traditional design. Y'all? Are you from the deep south? Y'all come back now.[/QUOTE] What bearing does my place of upbringing have on my argument? Or could you not find a single thing to coherently refute/argue and settled for a half-assed ad-hominem attack because I used the word "y'all"?

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52687290](it kinda does if you want the car to have any semblance of quality, this is true of modern ICEs too) Your car isn't going to be updating in the morning when you're heading to work. I'm sure as shit the guys at any given car company had the foresight to think "huh may-b we not update at 7am lol". Shit, we've had the ability to specify update schedules for computers since forever, that's almost certainly something you can do (having not been in a Tesla myself I can't confirm it with first-hand experience. But it's an obvious feature). Again, what have Tesla disabled that a customer has wanted exactly? You didn't specify this despite it being something you brought up in your previous post that I then asked you to expand on. So what is it they've disabled? And no, while an electric car doesn't [I]need[/I] to update, the ability to do so to optimise the drivetrain and generally improve the software to fix critical bugs and improve the performance or user experience of the dashboard is a massive boon to the car. Via updates Tesla have managed to make their cars both faster, more responsive and much more energy efficient. The car is still the exact same car you bought, but [I]better[/I], you still have all the control over it you did before but now the car operates [I]better[/I]. I'm sure the second they do something actually negative people will point it out. Thus far the haven't, because they know their cars are too expensive to get away with that shit. And sure you could implement a recall to force a firmware update (this happens to your modern ICE too today if you take it in to a service at the manufacturer and there happens to be an update! ICE ECUs are just as susceptible to updates as the Tesla "ECU"). But again, not everyone listens to those.[/QUOTE]The extra power stored in the battery would be one thing they disabled that the user wanted(If it costs them the same to produce the car, why not charge the same price) another was when they disabled the Model X's door safety sensors(probably by accident, but they should really do more bug checks) the update which increased the car's speed was something which they subsequently disabled in the next update. And then there is the potential for them to disable anything in car without the user's knowledge and there's the obvious potential for people to hack the car, lock you in or cause a crash. Why shouldn't the customer have to ability to say no to an update? Why are you being so defensive about this? Why shouldn't I have the choice to choose a different electric car over concerns, you're essentially saying I shouldn't drive a car if I don't trust firmware updates. I don't want a car that 'requires' updates, I also don't like the Model 3's placement of the speedometer and for some reason people are outraged by that. Look, they're a good company, but in future if somehow managed to earn more I'll go with a different electric car that doesn't need firmware and puts the speedometer in front of the steering wheel. Not really part of this argument, but I don't want a future where everyone rents a car they're not allowed to drive? [editline]17th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;52688001]What bearing does my place of upbringing have on my argument? Or could you not find a single thing to coherently refute/argue and settled for a half-assed ad-hominem attack because I used the word "y'all"?[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I didn't think you were from the deep south, I thought you were just using 'y'all' as an unnecessary contraction and accidentally sounded like someone from the deep south, anyway people are mad because the car costs the same to make, yet the customer could be getting extra battery life for the same price as the lower model without any cost to the company. If Tesla came out and said it was to cover R&D costs for that vehicle, people would understand, but at this point it looks like a lack of competition has given them the ability to dictate the market. It's like if I sold you a phone I'd bought from a wholesaler, then you discovered that I'd disabled some of the memory so I could change more for a 'higher' model that costs me the same price from the wholesaler. I could have just charged you the same and given you the same memory while making enough profit.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52688630] It's like if I sold you a phone I'd bought from a wholesaler, then you discovered that I'd disabled some of the memory so I could change more for a 'higher' model that costs me the same price from the wholesaler. I could have just charged you the same and given you the same memory while making enough profit.[/QUOTE] It's the exact other way around. Tesla already offered higher-end models, and when they added the cheaper software-limited cars the high-end models' prices did not change. Also, what you're describing is sneaky scummy behaviour. Tesla is completely upfront about the nature of its budget offerings.