Support NeoGAF

[Stinkles]

You own the physical fucking battery that is capable of going the whole way but they charge you to remove the software which limits it?
These fucking savages are enslaving consumers with drm and it needs to stop.

Look. I don't like it. It feels weird. But I understand it.

My car (an Audi) includes about four features that are software locked. The trim model above unlocks some of them, and some of them are unlocked by a subscription to a service. My car is PHSYICALLY capable of a bunch of behaviors, including self driving, that I did not pay for. That's software. My car is a combination of both.

Incredibly reductive but important comparison: Office Student vs Office Pro? One is far more expensive and comes with more features, but the physical discs and packaging costs are almost irrelevant. You're paying for the R&D, the rents, the effort. Not the plastic.

The same is true of Tesla's business model (which as I have noted isn't even unique to Tesla) and I think this entire conversation has been derailed.

What Tesla did here is effectively the opposite of Uber surge charging. They temporarily made the SERVICE available for free as a matter of public safety and corporate responsibility, knowing full well it would raise precisely this stink.

This will not be without cost to them as a company, and if they're smart they know that the goodwill gesture will be eclipsed by the understandable WTF reaction from non customers.

I will say that when you are a Tesla customer, this stuff is all very visible and front and center during the whole process. What SOFTWARE are you willing to pay for?

 

[nekkid]

Personally my line is drawn when the car has autonomous features. I don't want a hobbyist sending their self-driving machine out into the wild where it can go all GTA.

It depends what you mean. Would you consider ABS an autonomous feature? Because technically it is. And almost everything in there has some element of self-reliance.

You could put a load of code in there that seems to do the right thing, but then a combination of inputs causes the accelerator to stick on, or lights turn off, or the electrics to just fail completely while moving.

 

[Dude Abides]

Doesn't this assume Tesla would still make money this way? Isn't it possible (or even likely) the more expensive cars partially subsidize the battery cost on the lower priced vehicles, since penetration and volume is their biggest goal?

No. It simply assumes that the extra charge for unlocking the addditional 15kw has nothing to do with the (apparently nonexistent) marginal cost of producing the 75kw battery over the 69kw batteru.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Do you think hes a bad person?

Good people don't pull shit like this.

 

[E-Cat]

GAF's naivety about how selling electronics works channeled into hate for our Lord and Saviour Elon is baffling to me.

Bailing out of this shitshow.

 

[mashoutposse]

You have people in this thread with zero firsthand experience with Tesla telling actual Tesla users what's good and bad about the customer experience.

The 60 existed with a dedicated 60kWh pack and got the software-limited 75kWh pack in the interim before the model was discontinued. Given the uniquely low level of friction to upgrade (going from a BMW 328i to a 335i requires trading whole vehicles), they likely bet that enough people would take advantage and upgrade to justify giving everyone the better battery for this temporary period. This is no different than any free/limited trial offer and does not mean they can sell all 75s for 60 pricing.

During the process of selling one of mine (an 85), one prospective buyer went in another direction and bought a 60. He texted me 3 weeks later asking whether my car was still available since he loved the Model S platform so much that he wanted to spring for the bigger battery and that he already listed his 60 car for sale. I bet he wishes his car had a software-locked and paywalled 85kWh battery in it.

 

[Harl3]

It's actually almost the complete opposite of DLC. It's like a game releasing a singleplayer only version of their game for less money, a few months after the base game released with included multiplayer. A cheaper option for people who don't want or can't afford the full package.

I would love this, except for the part "a few months after the base game".

And it's a nice gesture

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Look. I don't like it. It feels weird. But I understand it.

My car (an Audi) includes about four features that are software locked. The trim model above unlocks some of them, and some of them are unlocked by a subscription to a service. My car is PHSYICALLY capable of a bunch of behaviors, including self driving, that I did not pay for. That's software. My car is a combination of both.

Incredibly reductive but important comparison: Office Student vs Office Pro? One is far more expensive and comes with more features, but the physical discs and packaging costs are almost irrelevant. You're paying for the R&D, the rents, the effort. Not the plastic.

The same is true of Tesla's business model (which as I have noted isn't even unique to Tesla) and I think this entire conversation has been derailed.

What Tesla did here is effectively the opposite of Uber surge charging. They temporarily made the SERVICE available for free as a matter of public safety and corporate responsibility, knowing full well it would raise precisely this stink.

This will not be without cost to them as a company, and if they're smart they know that the goodwill gesture will be eclipsed by the understandable WTF reaction from non customers.

I will say that when you are a Tesla customer, this stuff is all very visible and front and center during the whole process. What SOFTWARE are you willing to pay for?

This is a good summary of the situation.

 

[rambis]

Look. I don't like it. It feels weird. But I understand it.

My car (an Audi) includes about four features that are software locked. The trim model above unlocks some of them, and some of them are unlocked by a subscription to a service. My car is PHSYICALLY capable of a bunch of behaviors, including self driving, that I did not pay for. That's software. My car is a combination of both.

Incredibly reductive but important comparison: Office Student vs Office Pro? One is far more expensive and comes with more features, but the physical discs and packaging costs are almost irrelevant. You're paying for the R&D, the rents, the effort. Not the plastic.

The same is true of Tesla's business model (which as I have noted isn't even unique to Tesla) and I think this entire conversation has been derailed.

What Tesla did here is effectively the opposite of Uber surge charging. They temporarily made the SERVICE available for free as a matter of public safety and corporate responsibility, knowing full well it would raise precisely this stink.

This will not be without cost to them as a company, and if they're smart they know that the goodwill gesture will be eclipsed by the understandable WTF reaction from non customers.

I will say that when you are a Tesla customer, this stuff is all very visible and front and center during the whole process. What SOFTWARE are you willing to pay for?

I think most peolple understand what they are going for. I really don't understand why others here are acting like the concepts are so brazen or new. Again this same fight has been going on for decades in different forms. The companies generally don't come out on top.

 

[Tuorom]

Can't believe people are defending on-car DLC now.

It's not anything like DLC though. You aren't buying the car full price AND THEN having to pay extra.

You are buying the car at a lesser price, but with lesser capability.

 

[DarthWoo]

I remember having a Radeon 9800 that had some sort of limitation that could be unlocked with software. To be fair, supposedly they were versions of the premium card that didn't pass QC to run at full capacity, and if you used the software, it would either work or do nothing.

 

[Toparaman]

Can't believe people are defending on-car DLC now.

Well thought-out hot take.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

It's not anything like DLC though. You aren't buying the car full price AND THEN having to pay extra.

You are buying the car at a lesser price, but with lesser capability.

But Tesla is making the same car, just restricting some versions with software. This isn't like buying the V6 Ford Mustang instead of the V8 version. Clearly there's a production cost difference there, which justifies charging more for the V8 version. There is no production cost difference here, they just want to charge more to buyers who want extra range. The physical product is identical.

I think I can understand limiting advanced features behind a paywall. There's at least some additional R&D work put into those that a manufacturer can justifiably charge for, But limiting the range of a battery that can actually go farther if not for the software limitation seems weird.

 

[Korey]

Look. I don't like it. It feels weird. But I understand it.

My car (an Audi) includes about four features that are software locked. The trim model above unlocks some of them, and some of them are unlocked by a subscription to a service. My car is PHSYICALLY capable of a bunch of behaviors, including self driving, that I did not pay for. That's software. My car is a combination of both.

Incredibly reductive but important comparison: Office Student vs Office Pro? One is far more expensive and comes with more features, but the physical discs and packaging costs are almost irrelevant. You're paying for the R&D, the rents, the effort. Not the plastic.

The same is true of Tesla's business model (which as I have noted isn't even unique to Tesla) and I think this entire conversation has been derailed.

What Tesla did here is effectively the opposite of Uber surge charging. They temporarily made the SERVICE available for free as a matter of public safety and corporate responsibility, knowing full well it would raise precisely this stink.

This will not be without cost to them as a company, and if they're smart they know that the goodwill gesture will be eclipsed by the understandable WTF reaction from non customers.

I will say that when you are a Tesla customer, this stuff is all very visible and front and center during the whole process. What SOFTWARE are you willing to pay for?

This isn't software though.

That's the whole point.

 

[dpunk3]

Don't ignore the "less expensive vehicle" part.

It was essentially Tesla selling you the battery at a lower price than usual, at the cost of not being allowed to use the battery's max capacity.

It's not like they were ONLY selling the 60kHW model and then later informed everyone "Hey, you can actually pay to upgrade this right now!" as if it was never there in the first place.

It was more "Hey, you can't afford the 75kHW model? How about we cut you a deal with 60kHW, and if you feel like you wanna go up to 75, you can pay later"

That's the rational behind it.

But that means they can sell the 75kWH at a lower price and still not break the bank.... They are ripping people off for the 75kWH out of the box.

 

[East Lake]

But that means they can sell the 75kWH at a lower price and still not break the bank.... They are ripping people off for the 75kWH out of the box.

Not necessarily. Suppose you make 50,000 75kwh cars and software lock 10,000. If you discount ten thousand of them you can make back what you would lose on the discount either through later upgrades or pricing the remaining 40,000 higher, or a bit of both.

 

[Teletraan1]

If the size of the battery is standard at 75 across the board then they should just make it 75 for everyone rather than a feature that is artificially capped. It should not be something that they charge more for since the cost is the same for them. This assigning value to how far you can drive has fostered some shady business practices here.

 

[Belgorim]

But that means they can sell the 75kWH at a lower price and still not break the bank.... They are ripping people off for the 75kWH out of the box.

WTF, I have been trying to follow the arguments in this thread. But are we now arguing that a luxury sedan from a company actualy losing money should be cheaper because they would still make a margin at a lower price point?

Do you own an iPhone or buy food or anything? Do you realise they can sell these products at a lower margin?

If Tesla wants to offer two payment models for the same car they should be able to (I dont think they do this anymore, and they where up front about it when they did, owners are not the ones upset here).

One version can be partially paid and locked, the other fully paid and unlocked. You can unlock the lower cost model later for a higher total price if you want to.

 

[stryker1138]

Look. I don't like it. It feels weird. But I understand it.

My car (an Audi) includes about four features that are software locked. The trim model above unlocks some of them, and some of them are unlocked by a subscription to a service. My car is PHSYICALLY capable of a bunch of behaviors, including self driving, that I did not pay for. That's software. My car is a combination of both.

Incredibly reductive but important comparison: Office Student vs Office Pro? One is far more expensive and comes with more features, but the physical discs and packaging costs are almost irrelevant. You're paying for the R&D, the rents, the effort. Not the plastic.

The same is true of Tesla's business model (which as I have noted isn't even unique to Tesla) and I think this entire conversation has been derailed.

What Tesla did here is effectively the opposite of Uber surge charging. They temporarily made the SERVICE available for free as a matter of public safety and corporate responsibility, knowing full well it would raise precisely this stink.

This will not be without cost to them as a company, and if they're smart they know that the goodwill gesture will be eclipsed by the understandable WTF reaction from non customers.

I will say that when you are a Tesla customer, this stuff is all very visible and front and center during the whole process. What SOFTWARE are you willing to pay for?

There is no unique software that comes online once 60 kWh is reached to allow higher-paying customers to extract more juice from the battery. You are not paying for any additional functionality in the way you might pay for more features in a higher tier of Office.

 

[Jonnax]

So they sold their car for a lower price with the stipulation that a portion of the battery would be locked out with the ability to upgrade. And people are getting upset about it?

It's a common business model. The price it costs the manufacturer doesn't correlate with the price of the product. It's whatever price that consumer is willing to pay.

The Tesla customers for the lower model were not duped.

 

[Trace]

If the size of the battery is standard at 75 across the board then they should just make it 75 for everyone rather than a feature that is artificially capped. It should not be something that they charge more for since the cost is the same for them. This assigning value to how far you can drive has fostered some shady business practices here.

It's a feature, no different than anything else you pay for. Netflix has the option to deliver you 4k content with almost no difference in price to them, and the option is there for you to pay for it a premium over 1080p. People are just upset now because it's a car for some reason.

Software is software, and as long as the buyers were aware that they were getting 60 kwh of charge out a battery it really doesn't matter what the actual capacity of that battery is.

 

[AstroNut325]

It seems most people can't grasp the concept. Just because it cost the same to produce doesn't mean there can't be differentiated product lines at different price points.

This is not on-disc DLC. You're not paying the full price and then paying more. Tesla is discounting the car to a lower price and making it possible for more people to afford it.

Edit:

So they sold their car for a lower price with the stipulation that a portion of the battery would be locked out with the ability to upgrade. And people are getting upset about it?

It's a common business model. The price it costs the manufacturer doesn't correlate with the price of the product. It's whatever price that consumer is willing to pay.

The Tesla customers for the lower model were not duped.

Thank you. So much this!

Edit 2:

It's a feature, no different than anything else you pay for. Netflix has the option to deliver you 4k content with almost no difference in price to them, and the option is there for you to pay for it a premium over 1080p. People are just upset now because it's a car for some reason.

Software is software, and as long as the buyers were aware that they were getting 60 kwh of charge out a battery it really doesn't matter what the actual capacity of that battery is.

And this too!

 

[psyfi]

Don't ignore the "less expensive vehicle" part.

It was essentially Tesla selling you the battery at a lower price than usual, at the cost of not being allowed to use the battery's max capacity.

It's not like they were ONLY selling the 60kHW model and then later informed everyone "Hey, you can actually pay to upgrade this right now!" as if it was never there in the first place.

It was more "Hey, you can't afford the 75kHW model? How about we cut you a deal with 60kHW, and if you feel like you wanna go up to 75, you can pay later"

That's the rational behind it.

I'm not seeing much rationality here

 

[Spikematic]

This is not on-disc DLC. You're not paying the full price and then paying more. Tesla is discounting the car to a lower price and making it possible for more people to afford it.

This still sounds like on-disc DLC to me. This would be like Capcom shipping Street Fighter x Tekken with 10 characters already on the disc but deciding that they need to charge extra to cover the additional costs of creating them for the game. So they then they give users the option of either buying the game normally or with a season pass/optional addon pack/collector's edition to buy an enhanced/complete version for extra $$$. So basically, Tesla is giving consumers the option of buying something cheaper by locking away something that is already there. Game companies can do the exact same thing and justify it the same way Tesla did: we are giving consumers the option to buy the game cheaper.

I mean, from a business point of view it may seem sound to some (I'm not that bothered by it myself personally) but I can also see why the concept comes off as a bit scummish to some.

 

[mashoutposse]

I don't follow gaming anymore; this is the first time I'm hearing about "on-disc DLC." There's nothing wrong with that model. Extending expensive development and production to create paywalled premium content is a fair practice. It is up to the consumer to determine whether the standard content represents enough value to justify the base retail price.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

What do people think about gasoline car makers selling you different versions of a model mainly differentiated by horsepower figures but underneath they all have the same engine and that power difference lies in software - ie the engine tuning?

 

[ASTROID2]

I wonder if it would be considered stealing if you hacked the car to get the whole battery capacity.

 

[Belgorim]

I wonder if it would be considered stealing if you hacked the car to get the whole battery capacity.

I doubt it, but probably voids warranty and insurance?

Those are kind of important with cars...

 

[Noobcraft]

How does Tesla do the artificial drop from 75 to 60 for these cars? Does the battery not actually charge to 100% unless you upgrade? Does the car run out of battery power artificially before the battery actually loses charge?

 

[GSG Flash]

At first I thought that Tesla was doing something similar to what GM does with the Volt, which is that they initially lock a portion of the battery when the car is brand new and slowly unlock it over time so that the driver doesn't notice the battery and range degradation over the lifetime of the car. I thought that maybe Tesla was doing the same and temporarily unlocked the entire battery in Hurricane stricken areas.

The actual story is not as impressive... I don't like hardware you own being locked behind a paywall.

 

[rambis]

I don't follow gaming anymore; this is the first time I'm hearing about "on-disc DLC." There's nothing wrong with that model. Extending expensive development and production to create paywalled premium content is a fair practice. It is up to the consumer to determine whether the standard content represents enough value to justify the base retail price.

Nickel and diming is a very fair ethical process.

Im glad that I can do mostly what I want with something when I buy it. Including circumventing digital protections. Companies are brainwashing more and more people outta basic ownership rights and its sad.

I wonder if it would be considered stealing if you hacked the car to get the whole battery capacity.

I'd love to see the court that would side with Tesla in that case.

 

[Ambient80]

I guess I just can’t get too upset when Tesla is very upfront about the situation and the customer agrees to it so they can get the car cheaper. If they were super quiet about it and trying to deceive people I could understand, but from everything that I’ve seen, they’re not doing that at all.

 

[Legend of Aims]

I see nothing wrong. You get the chance to upgrade for same price difference.

 

[Theonik]

IIRC, Tesla found it ended up being cheaper to just manufacture the 75kwh battery and software limit it rather than manufacture a 60kwh and 75kwh separately.

IMO, if you can manufacture the 75kwh battery that cheaply, just make it the minimum option. Why bother faking a lower capacity?

Because the more expensive 75KWh model ends up subsidising the cheaper 60KWh model existing. This is quite common in value engineering solutions as the cost of having two production lines for the two models would make the cheaper option non-viable. Unless there is significant material differences in the two SKUs it's always cheaper to make to do it this way. (lower end model means you make more product overall/can hit the lower price)

The two are not priced nor sold as the same though.

 

[Fularu]

Jesus at that derail right from the OP

 

[KeRaSh]

But that means they can sell the 75kWH at a lower price and still not break the bank.... They are ripping people off for the 75kWH out of the box.

Well, they ARE ripping people off but not because of the reasons you think. From the very start Tesla said that they made the Model S and X to fund their mass market Model 3. Tesla is very open about the fact that they keep a high margin on the S and X to bring the 3 to market.
Software locking the battery on the other hand is the best thing a consumer could hope for. I wish they did the same thing with the Model 3. Unfortunately I won't be able to afford the 10k extra for the bigger battery (although I really don't need it with a 3 mile commute each day...) but that means I'm stuck with the battery that I get on day one. If they capped the battery I could unlock the extra range if I come across some extra cash.
How is this anything but a bonus? Buy cheap entry model of a really nice car and upgrade a few years down the line.

This still sounds like on-disc DLC to me. This would be like Capcom shipping Street Fighter x Tekken with 10 characters already on the disc but deciding that they need to charge extra to cover the additional costs of creating them for the game. So they then they give users the option of either buying the game normally or with a season pass/optional addon pack/collector's edition to buy an enhanced/complete version for extra $$$. So basically, Tesla is giving consumers the option of buying something cheaper by locking away something that is already there. Game companies can do the exact same thing and justify it the same way Tesla did: we are giving consumers the option to buy the game cheaper.

I mean, from a business point of view it may seem sound to some (I'm not that bothered by it myself personally) but I can also see why the concept comes off as a bit scummish to some.

How are people still not getting this? This is not Capcom locking characters on their 60$ disc to charge extra. This would be Capcom selling the base game for 40$ and charging 20$ for the extra characters. They are making less money to be able to sell an entry level version of their car to more customers without having to produce two separate battery packs at a higher cost. If they dropped the 60 kWh back then without having a capped version then the entry level model would have been the 75 kWh model which some people would not have been able to afford.

How does Tesla do the artificial drop from 75 to 60 for these cars? Does the battery not actually charge to 100% unless you upgrade? Does the car run out of battery power artificially before the battery actually loses charge?

As an owner you benefit greatly from a 75 kWh battery that is capped at 60 kWh compared to a battery that actually only holds 60 kWh.

Benefits of the capped battery:

- You can safely charge to 100% for 10-20% extra range every day. Usually it is recommended to only charge to 80% to not damage the battery. 100% charge is only recommended if you immediately go on a trip since letting it sit at max capacity degrades the cells.

- You can fast charge longer than a regular 60 kWh battery. The charging speed drops off once you reach a certain point. Capped batteries don't get close to that drop off point until much closer to their capped max charge.

- You can upgrade to a "bigger battery" without having to get a new car. The owner of the max 60 kWh car is stuck with that battery capacity forever.


ITT entitled, uninformed, non Tesla owners are freaking out about something that has been in place for years and has already been discontinued since at the end people liked to get the cars cheaper and still get the benefits that I listed above so Tesla was basically missing out on part of their margins because not enough owners actually upgraded in the end. Tesla is not a charity.

 

[Jackpot]

So they sold their car for a lower price with the stipulation that a portion of the battery would be locked out with the ability to upgrade. And people are getting upset about it?

They can clearly afford to sell the full-size battery at the lower price-point but are arbitrarily walling it off from use in order to nickle-and-dime consumers. Stop feeling sorry for the massive conglomerate.

 

[Cheat Code]

And another instance of half of GAF failing basic comprehension.

Wouldn't be surprised if some of you thought upgrading your graphcs card was Microsoft somehow scamming you because Windows didnt run as well on the old one.

 

[The Technomancer]

And another instance of half of GAF failing basic comprehension.

Wouldn't be surprised if some of you thought upgrading your graphcs card was Microsoft somehow scamming you because Windows didnt run as well on the old one.

There's no hardware being changed whatsoever

 

[KeRaSh]

They can clearly afford to sell the full-size battery at the lower price-point but are arbitrarily walling it off from use in order to nickle-and-dime consumers. Stop feeling sorry for the massive conglomerate.

Yes, businesses should just forget about margins and sell all their products slightly above production cost. I really hope you posted that from a reasonably priced Apple product.

They are obviously not losing money from selling the capped battery at a lower price but that doesn't mean it's a sustainable business plan. Tesla is investing a boat load of money into their Gigafactory and the production ramp up of the Model 3 so they can't afford to lower their margins on their luxury models. They are very upfront about the fact that rich people buying Model S and X are basically allowing Tesla to get to a point where they can sell cars to Joe Average.

 

[Gold Coins for Cats]

The only thing that unsettles me after a calm, rational look at the issue is that this software unlocking was able to be done remotely. Now obviously I can reasonably assume that Tesla isn't going to abuse a feature like this, but the groundwork has been laid. Imagine, if you will, Tesla's update servers getting hacked and a malicious update being pushed through that chokes the battery capacity to 5KWh until a $100 'donation' to a bitcoin address has been made.

Obviously not a large chance of that happening to Tesla in the current market, but since electric cars are allegedly supposed to be the future, the companies down the line that cheaply copy their business practices will be susceptible to this. I'm just highly leery of such potentially dangerous machines like cars being able to be modified on the fly like that.

 

[Tuorom]

But Tesla is making the same car, just restricting some versions with software. This isn't like buying the V6 Ford Mustang instead of the V8 version. Clearly there's a production cost difference there, which justifies charging more for the V8 version. There is no production cost difference here, they just want to charge more to buyers who want extra range. The physical product is identical.

I think I can understand limiting advanced features behind a paywall. There's at least some additional R&D work put into those that a manufacturer can justifiably charge for, But limiting the range of a battery that can actually go farther if not for the software limitation seems weird.

Wtf why is this so hard to understand for people.

The 75 battery is the full product at full price. This is the base model.

The 60 battery is most of the product at most of the price.

Therefore, they ARE NOT charging more. The price is completely relative to the function of the automobile.

Holy shit.

 

[Lord Panda]

The only thing that unsettles me after a calm, rational look at the issue is that this software unlocking was able to be done remotely. Now obviously I can reasonably assume that Tesla isn't going to abuse a feature like this, but the groundwork has been laid. Imagine, if you will, Tesla's update servers getting hacked and a malicious update being pushed through that chokes the battery capacity to 5KWh until a $100 'donation' to a bitcoin address has been made.

Obviously not a large chance of that happening to Tesla in the current market, but since electric cars are allegedly supposed to be the future, the companies down the line that cheaply copy their business practices will be susceptible to this. I'm just highly leery of such potentially dangerous machines like cars being able to be modified on the fly like that.

So is this unlock being pushed via WiFi or some other link?

 

[FreddieQuell]

So is this unlock being pushed via WiFi or some other link?

I'm pretty sure the cars have cellular connections also.

 

[Gold Coins for Cats]

So is this unlock being pushed via WiFi or some other link?

The article makes it sound like it happened automatically. Sure, updating may require a button press on the user's part, but people have been trained to press those buttons blindly.

Edit: it wouldn't even require a proper hacker, just a disgruntled employee with the right technical experience and access.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

For a mere 1,500 tesla coins you can now unlock the ultra fast window wiper feature. It will increase the speed of your wipers by 50%! Wipe the rain out like never before!

 

[wumster3000]

And another instance of half of GAF failing basic comprehension.

Wouldn't be surprised if some of you thought upgrading your graphcs card was Microsoft somehow scamming you because Windows didnt run as well on the old one.

I have a Model S and reading some of these posts makes no sense to me. I don't understand the logic behind what a lot of people are saying. As you stated, it seems like basic comprehension. I just don't get it.

 

[JrBaconCheeseburger]

Based on the price you pay for any TESLA.

That extra range could be added since day one.

 

[rambis]

Wtf why is this so hard to understand for people.

The 75 battery is the full product at full price. This is the base model.

The 60 battery is most of the product at most of the price.

Therefore, they ARE NOT charging more. The price is completely relative to the function of the automobile.

Holy shit.

Hook line and sinker.

 

[FreddieQuell]

So at some point they sold a 60KWh car that actually had a 60KWh battery right? What was the price of that car compared to the 60KWh car that actually has a 75KWh battery in it?