i agree.
Buy something from us that we've no idea whether you can legally use when we eventually get round to delivering.... doesn't really put them in a good light does it.
but folks, feel free to suggest they ban everyone from ever doing business with them again if they think that's unfair
Holding Tesla responsible for the actions of every regulator everywhere is wholly inappropriate.
I would encourage you to spend some time with the electrical code in the United States: a nationally-recognized central body (NFPA) provides the governance and publishing of the National Electric Code. When it does publish the new standards, it expects that the new standard will be adopted in its entirety. However, political climates do exist, and very frequently, state, county, and local boards take issue with certain provisions. They adopt the NEC as part of codified law, but insert their own exceptions and/or re-write certain portions of it.
For example, Chicago enacted a restriction eliminating article 334 (NM cable / Romex) in its jurisdiction, requiring conduit to be used under the guise of safety (and to the benefit of IBEW / electrician's union). And there are THOUSANDS of these exceptions from states, counties, and cities all over the US.
Holding Tesla responsible for Hong Kong banning AP is like trying to hold NFPA responsible because you can't use NM/Romex in your Chicago home. Expecting the NFPA to keep track of - and publish - all restrictions of every local regulator is also burdensome. It's bad enough Tesla has been held hostage enough to put restrictions in their software for that specific jurisdiction. I recognize that in Hong Kong they don't have as many political rights as many other countries, but this one is on the regulator and the action needs to be pushed toward them, not Tesla.
Should Tesla have to appear before every regulatory body in the world prior to releasing a new feature to gain their approval? Or should it work with a "greater majority" stance and only highlight those *known* to cause problems?