Chezzymann
Member
But you already have it. It's like selling a video game with extra content already on the disc.... oh wait
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tesla (temporarily) remotely extends range of vehicles for free in Florida
- Thread starter Swass
- Start date
But you already have it. It's like selling a video game with extra content already on the disc.... oh wait
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Extra battery power being a safety feature is like saying more gas in the gas tank is a safety feature. That would be a first.
I'm glad the goal post got moved from "it's your hardware" to "it's a safety feature" -- just proves who knows what they're talking about or not
I'm glad the goal post got moved from "it's your hardware" to "it's a safety feature" -- just proves who knows what they're talking about or not
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
No it's like having people who view the cost of producing cars see it's more sound to produce one of something and sell it at discounted prices to allow people who wouldn't have purchased the full price product buy one at the reduced price, gaining a sale they wouldn't have in the first place while giving the option to upgrade to the full product if the person chooses.
So yes, you already have the hardware, but you have an agreement with the company that you are willing to buy the product at a reduced price for reduced options/performance.
Your argument breaks down at that point, because the issue with selling on disk DLC is that it's always been behind the consumers back in order to gain more profits.
A far more apt comparison is a game has multiplayer and singleplayer on disk, and you have the option to buy the singleplayer for $40 outright, and the option to buy the multiplayer for an extra $20 if you want to play it. This is an agreement the consumer and company agree to and the consumer has the power to choose what option is best
I have already explained why it is bad in this thread. The Apppe example follows that same logic. Regardless of what their software limits it to, they sold you a higher capacity battery/storage. They gave you hardware capable of that and artificially limited it. They can clearly afford to sell it at that price and make a profit from it. Find real differences to dicersify your line, not artificial limitations.
for a cheaper price... which you clearly ignore.
probably not, since they discontinued the 60kw.
Chezzymann
Member
I can understand that, but to me it comes down to a fundamental restructuring of what it means to own something. If I bought it, and I have it, I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want with it. Id actually encourage people to root their Tesla's and find a way to get the extra milage without being caught, because it's their battery even if it's discounted. If they want more price options they should develop different sizes of batteries even if it costs more money. Because the other option is immoral in my opinion.
do you feel the same way about the autopilot software? Every Tesla ships with all the necessary hardware to run the autopilot. But you have to pay for the software either at purchase for a certain price or after the fact for i think double the price.
Chezzymann
Member
No. That's just like buying a regular program on a computer.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
That has been changing with the rapid growth of RD tech and the complex nature of software interwoven with hardware that goes into countless products in our lives.
Legally speaking I'm sure it's not illegal to root a Tesla, just like it's not illegal to root a phone.
It's just that Tesla will tell you to fuck off if you brick your car.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
What the hell is the difference if autopilot is preloaded or not?
You're not using the hard drive space for anything else
You're not using the hard drive space for anything else
how is it different, as you said:
you can't do whatever you want with the hardware until you buy the software and you still cant do whatever you want with it after you buy it for obvious safety reasons.
Chezzymann
Member
Yeah I edited my post. Shouldn't matter if it's pre installed.
again no its not. The fundamental issue here that this entire thread is about is selling 75kw battery limited to 60kw. The auto pilot is the same thing, you've paid for the hardware, but you dont get to use it till you pay for the software, why aren't you outraged? Its the same freaking thing.
Chezzymann
Member
Well, I think it's different with self driving stuff since it directly impacts people's safety. You obviously shouldn't be writing your own self driving programs and testing it out on the public road. Maybe it would be okay in an empty parking lot. I just think you should be able to remove the battery and use it to power an army of robotic gerbils if you want to cause you own it.
That's like saying because I buy a video card that I should get video games for free since that is the software that is gonna run on the hardware. The example is bad. The issue is that the software existed only to make the battery worse. It would be like if Nvidia locked some of the VRAM or CUDA cores behind a firmware lock until you paid them more.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
What?
If you want to rip apart your car there is literally nothing stopping you. If you rip the battery out it's no longer software restricted in it's use...
Chezzymann
Member
Oh, that was a bad example then lol. I don't really know how the specifics work. I assumed the software restricting it was somehow inside the battery.
it would be more like selling a video game with a less content version for a cheaper price
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
More specifically
It's cheaper for the company to not make two physical versions, and the consumer has more options.
right someone up above nailed it. It would be like selling a single player game at 40 instead of 60 and if you want the multiplay paying the 20 for a total of 60.
Again no one is getting ripped off. If you bought a 75kw car you will pay the exact same as someone who bought the 60kw and then later upgraded to the 75kw.
but the point is moot anyway because they no longer sell the 60kw.
And once more the story again here should be Tesla doing something nice for their customers. Literally none of whom seem to be unaware that they bought the 60kw car and could upgrade it. Unlike the vast majority in this thread thats finding about this, months after tesla has discontinued the 60kw model.
Chezzymann
Member
Yeah I guess when you put it like that it's not as bad as I thought, every piece of electronics voids the warranty if you mess with it. It's just since Tesla has so much control over the recharging stations that makes it an issue. If there were more third parties that accepted rooted Tesla's it would be less of a problem.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Charging stations don't have knowledge of the cars capacity.
That's on the car for informing the charger when it's full to cut off the charger.
If that was the case we would have in house chargers overfilling Teslas and making them explode on a regular basis.
You are sure that Tesla would give extended range? How are you sure? Is that a policy they have written down somewhere? How does it work? How quickly do they turn it on? You are giving them credit for something they don't deserve and have never said (to the best of my knowledge) that it is their policy to do.
I would argue that Tesla doesn't understand how the value of consumer goods work. Remember that the 60KWH drm option was discontinued because it wasn't successful after like 9 months. If the drm locked battery is such a good idea for the consumer... why didn't they buy it?
If extending the capability of the battery is NOT a safety issue, then why are they extending the range of the battery here. Clearly, it can be a safety issue.
If it is potentially a safety issue here, it could also be a safety issue at other times, like a blizzard, or when that ice storm hit Atlanta, or when you have a family emergency of some kind and haven't had time to recharge yet.
Are you sure that they wouldn't? Is that a policy they have written down somewhere? How does it work? Do they call 911 for you? AAA? How quickly do they hang up on you after saying you're dying? Do they file a record of the request? You are making something into a safety issue with the assumption that Tesla would willingly let people die and therefore they are wrong for selling software limited batteries.
If you have an onstar capable vehicle and get stranded but didnt pay for the subscription, is it Chevrolets fault you got stranded and therefore selling onstar capable cars was a safety issue? Does just not selling onstar capable vehicles solve this problem? Or not selling these batteries at all? Like its okay if people die, just as long as they didnt have the option to get help? Thats the moral way of doing it?
Again, read my first post on this. I specifically said it is wrong to withhold potentially life saving technology if there is no cost for the company to do so.
On star has a cost to run. Operators are employed, they have to maintain the cell network and service it runs on. Somebody has to pay for that.
Unlocking the batteries costs literally nothing to Tesla. The cost of the battery is already a sunk cost.
TheCochese
Banned
Starting to think people are arguing against this just because of bias to Tesla or Musk.
Nothing else makes logical sense.
Nothing else makes logical sense.
Like I said, your entire argument is hinging on the assumption that they would willingly withhold this from you in a life threatening situation, and somehow exempting onstar from the same moral imperative because of profits. None of these things even make this a bad option, theyre fringe hypothetical scenarios in which Tesla is still not at fault for the person being unsafe. If they are in a dangerous scenario because of the size of their battery, how is that Tesla's fault? They aren't liable for what people do in their cars. You are arguing that they should give a consumer something of value for free because it might benefit them in some way. Thats true for every product ever. You dont need those extra kwh hours in your luxury sports car, and thats why you chose not to pay for them. Water and electricity arent even free, people dont have a basic human right to maximum kwh in their luxury EVs. If you need the extra kwh, pay for them. If you get into tough shit its not Tesla's fault, you chose to buy that car and are getting what you paid for, and you can certainly argue that they might have some sort of moral obligation to help people, but thats pretty laughable when you say OnStar has no obligation to save peoples lives because it costs them money but not Tesla.
Wowfunhappy
Member
I'm fine with Tesla selling people hardware that has been artificially gimped via software—but only under the condition that if a user modifie the software to make full use of their hardware, Tesla can't complain.
I feel the same way about on disc DLC fwiw.
I feel the same way about on disc DLC fwiw.
Unknown Soldier
Member
So you're advocating for hacking games to activate DLC you didn't pay for?
Gravy Boat
Member
What difference does it make if the limit is artificial or because of hardware? Either way, I'm getting a cheaper product with less capabilities and people who want to pay more can. You've explained the situation but not why it's actually a bad thing. See this
This would be a net positive for all iPhone users. Please explain the negatives if you think there are any.
Wowfunhappy
Member
If they decide to include it on the disc that I bought? Yes. I am allowed to see and play thorugh any assets or code that came on my disc.
Clockwork
Member
That's fundamentally wrong though.
You did not pay for those additional items. The disc is just a convenient delivery mechanism. You paid $xx for a certain experience and you get that experience. Think back to shareware or unlockable demos.
You don't own the code on the disc. Imagine uploading said data to the internet and let people download freely (aka piracy). Is your argument going to be that you already paid for said data so you are free to do as you wish with it?
It's all a moot point though because it is a shitty comparison/analogy. The price of consumer goods (especially in the luxury segment) has no direct correlation to its manufacturing cost.
Skellig Gra
Member
Quite the contrast between this thread and the "People's unwillness to pay for software is weird" thread.
Wowfunhappy
Member
For personal use within my own home, yes! That's not the same thing as uploading copies to the internet.
I don't see how you can be for this and against artificially restricting battery usage. The economics of manufacturing and distribution are different, but the core principle is the same.
Tatersalad
Member
There are tons of posts in this thread describing why people aren't happy about this, but some would rather argue and debate with others than try to understand their perspective. This feels like another step towards removing actual ownership of the stuff we pay for. DRM on our gas tanks, DRM on our Keurig coffee machines. If Tesla can flip a switch and remove the limit now, what else features can they enable (or disable) remotely? As cars and appliances become more connected and software / 'service' models gets jammed down our throat whether we like it or not, issues like this will continue to arise. Perception is important, and if enough people complain then companies will have to think twice before making changes such as this.
Nah. DLC is covered by copyright. When you buy a disc you're buying a license to what the disc allows you to access.
Buying a battery is fundamentally different than buying a video game.
Seems like alot of you think Tesla is GOAT and can do nothing wrong. They deserve criticism like every other company but often I see people defending them no matter what they do.
Limiting ranges is a total ripoff. It's like buying a Mustang that's locked to 300 horse power unless you pay more to unlock it. Or buying a video game and then having to pay to get the full experience. This is like DLC in real life. Don't see how some of you are fine getting ripped off by a company that at the end of the day just cares about profit.
Limiting ranges is a total ripoff. It's like buying a Mustang that's locked to 300 horse power unless you pay more to unlock it. Or buying a video game and then having to pay to get the full experience. This is like DLC in real life. Don't see how some of you are fine getting ripped off by a company that at the end of the day just cares about profit.
TheCochese
Banned
You're still getting what you paid for. Period.
Nowhere else does the slippery slope argument hold water, so why should it here?
There's nothing here to complain about, not from the people who were actually interested in the car, or even bought it. It wasn't discontinued because people complained, people saw that the full battery option was the better option.
There's no immorality here, there's no breach of ethics.
Theonik
Member
I wonder how some people here would feel about this if people had found a way to remove the DRM restrictions and convert their cars to 75 models for free. Surely they didn't pay for that. How do people feel about removing physical restrictions/gimping? Surely the moral argument is the same?
CyclopsRock
Member
You do own it and you can do what you want with it. Do you know how to turn on that extra 15kW of battery power? Cause the "thing" you bought - and by "thing", I mean the combination of hardware and software that you exchanged money for - was something that has the potential capacity of 75kW batteries but the software it comes with limits it to using 60. That's the thing you bought, that you own. If you then want to go further and tinker with it yourself, fill your boots. Many, many owners of routers do just that with custom firmware.
Not sure why this is still a thing and how hard it is to understand but ok.
It's like your ISP. You pay for the thing but with a few keypresses on their end you suddenly get more/less speed depending on what you do.
But the line is already there, but you pay less than the guy next door who have the same line. Everything is identical but since he pay more he gets more speed, that's just artificially limiting your internet speed for no reason!!
ISPs are on disc DLC too!
Horrible, how dare they sell things for cheaper when it supports more if you're willing to pay for it later down the line! Outrageous!
Cmon man. The thing don't even exist anymore and it's not like this is tricking anybody at all. And it's not like this is something new, at all. Regular engines can also be limited and sold for cheaper for you to unlocking them later and gaining more HP and such, not 100% identical but it's not a new thing, or shady by any stretch.
The only apt video game comparison is buying a cheaper version of a game with portions locked for you to purchase if you like it and want more. The content is already downloaded but you can't use it since you didn't pay for it in full, yet.
It's like your ISP. You pay for the thing but with a few keypresses on their end you suddenly get more/less speed depending on what you do.
But the line is already there, but you pay less than the guy next door who have the same line. Everything is identical but since he pay more he gets more speed, that's just artificially limiting your internet speed for no reason!!
ISPs are on disc DLC too!
Horrible, how dare they sell things for cheaper when it supports more if you're willing to pay for it later down the line! Outrageous!
Cmon man. The thing don't even exist anymore and it's not like this is tricking anybody at all. And it's not like this is something new, at all. Regular engines can also be limited and sold for cheaper for you to unlocking them later and gaining more HP and such, not 100% identical but it's not a new thing, or shady by any stretch.
The only apt video game comparison is buying a cheaper version of a game with portions locked for you to purchase if you like it and want more. The content is already downloaded but you can't use it since you didn't pay for it in full, yet.
Similar threads
- Locked