-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 7.0
- Thread starter MarcG
- Start date
Engineering decisions vs. policy decisions. I get the impression green1 is fine with trusting the former, but is currently not trusting the latter.
Sorry to put words in your mouth, G.
green1
Active Member
That's exactly where we're at.
As for "beta", sure, do what you want with it, but that doesn't mean I'll chose to install it.
Seeing that at least one non-EAP build in the wild includes autosteer restrictions, I've sent a note to my service center and ServiceHelpNA letting them know that they are not permitted to perform firmware updates on my P85D until further notice, and any repair, diagnostic, or other procedure requiring a firmware update to perform is declined without my express permission.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
Funny - that's exactly what I told them a couple of weeks ago (except for me it's in order to stay on 6.2).
jeffro01
Active Member
Oh come on... What your proposing has absolutely zero bearing on this discussion and is simply blowing smoke for the sake of it. Auto steer was, and still is, listed as a beta feature and as such Tesla can do whatever it wants with it while it's in beta. Even beyond that, restricting the use to save people from themselves still delivers the feature as advertised. Nowhere have I ever seen autopilot being marketed as usable on all roads, in all conditions. If you can find that, then we'll talk, but outside of that you really have no grounds for this reaction.
Tesla simply can't win and it's really quite ridiculous. Tesla tried to release the feature restriction free but quickly found that people couldn't be trusted with it, including posters on this very board. Because of some peoples complete disregard for the terms they agreed to when the turned on the feature, Tesla has really no choice but to do what it's doing before someone does something that's materially impactful to the brand. People claim to want OTA firmware updates, and champion them as a major benefit that Tesla has over it's competitors but then turn around and bitch and moan about it when they believe something is changing in the software they don't want. You can't have it both ways. If it would have been me, from the first Model S that was delivered, I'd have made it clear in the T&Cs that while the car is under warranty Tesla can push whatever software to the car they feel is necessary regardless of what you think you are entitled to as the owner. I doubt many would have refused to buy the car and it'd have cut down on the level of bitching and moaning that occurs here every time Tesla updates the firmware.
It's just really freaking ridiculous.
Jeff
- - - Updated - - -
Only it's not really your call to make. You may own the car, but Tesla owns the software. If I were Tesla I'd tell you tough ****.
Jeff
They're more than welcome to attempt that route. Case law on this is well on my side. Tesla is not allowed to modify my vehicle without my consent, including the vehicle's software. No where was the vehicle's software licensed for a limited time use or otherwise in a fashion that would allow them to modify my car without my permission. I'd welcome evidence to the contrary.
jeffro01
Active Member
You and I both know there are a million loopholes there. It's as simple as Tesla denying you warranty service going forward until you budge. I feel like your out to take Tesla down, like you think you've been wronged in some egregious manner that has made you hostile, and combative for reasons I just can't wrap my head around.
Jeff
AP is the reason I bought a Tesla (I don't care much about acceleration and I'd prefer a smaller car). It's not a small matter for me.
Do you really want to get into this? It had been marketed as doing automatic lane changes (it's not) and supporting summoning on private property.
Then they shouldn't have released it. If they feel that it's not safe then they can go through the usual channels and issue a mandatory safety recall and compensate the owners for the loss of functionality.
Microsoft (Apple, Google) can't just login into your computer and erase all your photos just because they feel like it, even though they own the software that you're licensing.
- - - Updated - - -
I consulted an attorney about this, she said that they absolutely have to perform the work. And if they remove some functionality because maintenance is impossible otherwise then they have to compensate for it. There's no wiggle room in this.
Turns out that car-related laws are pretty much the most pro-consumer laws in this country.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
Just a suggestion, but I'm wondering if the mods may want to split the discussion of new limitations on Auto Steer into a new thread.
jeffro01
Active Member
And you got what you paid for, next.Cyberax said:
My car does automatic lane changes, not sure why your's doesn't. Supporting summoning on private property will get here eventually, not sure what your issue here is. Tesla has said from day one that additional features will come over time.Cyberax said:
I just really cannot wrap my head around your position on this. AP is being restricted because people are using it in an unsafe manor, not because the feature is unsafe. There is a big different there. So again, no mandatory safety recall is necessary and you sure as hell aren't owed a damn thing.Cyberax said:
No, but have you read their T&Cs? I suspect you haven't. For instance, they can change the software whenever they want for whatever reason they want and when it comes to the cloud side of things, you have literally zero say in that. For instance, Apple could get rid of iCloud Photos tomorrow and delete everything of yours in their cloud and you couldn't do anything about it.Cyberax said:
Cyberax said:
Compensate you how? Your charging circuit failed, a new one requires the updated firmware. You have two choices, take the updated firmware or not be able to charge your car. The choice is yours but I fail to see just how Tesla could be forced to compensate you for anything. I really don't.
Sometimes I feel the greatest threat to Tesla and their goal are some of the very customers who bought their product.
Jeff
jeffro01
Active Member
Yep, at least for AP... Pretty clear that the "restrictions" Tesla is introduction line up perfectly with this text you get when you enable autopilot...
Jeff
If my memory serves me well, I believe that when Elon presented Autopilot during the "D and something else" event back in October 2014, he mentioned Autopilot was developed for use on highways, on-ramp to off-ramp.
So when Firmware 7.0 was first released (and you may remember I was the first one on here to upgrade my car and take it for a drive at 2am on 10/15/15), I was surprised to see that it worked on "surface roads" as well. Which made me nervous because I didn't think it was meant to do that, or designed well enough to perform on non-highways.
To me, this new restriction is still delivering more than was originally promised, which was AP on highways, on-ramp to off-ramp. Now of course, "highways" can be interpreted differently depending on your definition, but if you're expecting to blast down an undivided twisty 2-lane road at 90mph, that expectation will not be met.
In my personal opinion, as long as Tesla has implemented the restriction in a way that takes into account ALL highway conditions (which is very difficult to achieve) and have AP decide appropriately where to allow speeds above 45mph, then we're still getting a very good solution.
So when Firmware 7.0 was first released (and you may remember I was the first one on here to upgrade my car and take it for a drive at 2am on 10/15/15), I was surprised to see that it worked on "surface roads" as well. Which made me nervous because I didn't think it was meant to do that, or designed well enough to perform on non-highways.
To me, this new restriction is still delivering more than was originally promised, which was AP on highways, on-ramp to off-ramp. Now of course, "highways" can be interpreted differently depending on your definition, but if you're expecting to blast down an undivided twisty 2-lane road at 90mph, that expectation will not be met.
In my personal opinion, as long as Tesla has implemented the restriction in a way that takes into account ALL highway conditions (which is very difficult to achieve) and have AP decide appropriately where to allow speeds above 45mph, then we're still getting a very good solution.
jeffro01
Active Member
Summoning on private property? Automatic safe lane changes? Nope, still waiting for them. And I'm well into 20% of the usable vehicle life.
It doesn't matter. If they feel that they have to restrict functionality because it's too dangerous then they have to go through the safety recall process. Otherwise they can only ask me nicely to upgrade and they will be forced to perform warranty work.
Except that I haven't agreed to any TOS when I bought a Tesla. I signed a Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement and upheld my end of it.
Yep. A precedent she cited related to a rare wood dashboard that had to be removed for a warranty service and couldn't be replaced (they stopped producing it). The company had to pay a fair share of the vehicle price as a compensation.
jeffro01
Active Member
Again, my car changes lanes automatically when I flip the lever, not sure what your alluding to. Your like that guy who wouldn't eat his hat...
If you can't comprehend the difference between an unsafe feature and using a feature in an unsafe manor then I can't help you. They are very different things, and very clearly so.
The rest of your post, I just shake my head. I'm done going back and forth with you over this. It's a waist of both of ours time as we're never going to see eye to eye so this'll be my last reply to our back and forth.
Jeff
If you can't comprehend the difference between an unsafe feature and using a feature in an unsafe manor then I can't help you. They are very different things, and very clearly so.
The rest of your post, I just shake my head. I'm done going back and forth with you over this. It's a waist of both of ours time as we're never going to see eye to eye so this'll be my last reply to our back and forth.
Jeff
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
Aww, c'mon wk. In the past, you maintained you created that video of AP running the car on side roads (while you were in the back seat) to help Tesla, because the sw NEEDED restrictions - showing them what other people COULD do was supposed to help them.
Now you don't want the result of that? Say it ain't so!
Similar threads
