-
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
I don't think anybody would be against a driver-presence check.
Effectively limiting AP to only some roads after it's been out for several months is a completely different matter. I drive all the time on two-lane clearly marked roads with 55-65mph speed limits and I'm totally pissed that this capability is going away. I will sue if this update is forced on me.
Effectively limiting AP to only some roads after it's been out for several months is a completely different matter. I drive all the time on two-lane clearly marked roads with 55-65mph speed limits and I'm totally pissed that this capability is going away. I will sue if this update is forced on me.
green1
Active Member
Show me where it states that I *MUST* accept any and all software updates Tesla decides to issue?
For those in favour of this approach, how about you try a thought exercise, think about the feature that you most like about the model S, and imagine that you knew the next software update destroyed that feature, would you VOLUNTARILY upgrade?
Imagine if they changed the 0-60 time to 45 seconds? or cut the range down to 80 miles? or changed the screen to only use 6" instead of 17"? or any of a thousand other things. My take on it is that you don't have to accept it. Try to tell me you'd just take it if it was your favourite feature.
For those in favour of this approach, how about you try a thought exercise, think about the feature that you most like about the model S, and imagine that you knew the next software update destroyed that feature, would you VOLUNTARILY upgrade?
Imagine if they changed the 0-60 time to 45 seconds? or cut the range down to 80 miles? or changed the screen to only use 6" instead of 17"? or any of a thousand other things. My take on it is that you don't have to accept it. Try to tell me you'd just take it if it was your favourite feature.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
I think what is hard for some folks is to understand that just because you don't care for some features or you don't value some aspect of the car, others necessarily don't have to feel the same way.
I really care about the way the IC looks. wk and green and others really care about using auto steer on two lane roads going 65. Whatever. It's what we care about. And it's something we don't want Tesla to take away from us. And no one else gets to tell us that we are wrong feeling that way. You may disagree and I'm more than happy to acknowledge that many people (most people) disagree with me. But that doesn't mean that anyone gets to tell me I'm wrong to feel that way.
jeffro01
Active Member
Okay so this ought to be good. Judge, I was using AP in ways that violated the T&Cs I agreed to when I enabled the functionality. Tesla took that away form me, that's not fair, I want it back so I can use it in a manor that violates the T&Cs I agreed to when I enabled it... Man I'd love to see that exchange...
Jeff
jeffro01
Active Member
It's not legally binding and the language doesn't say that it absolutely must not be used on other types of roads. It only recommends that.
Tesla is welcome to attempt to deny me any warranty service that explicitly requires a firmware update beyond the version I currently have. At that time I'll make the call on how to proceed, but it will be my call to make. Based on my experience with the service center staff at multiple service centers (*always* an excellent experience from the service center staff and I have nothing but good things to say about them) I'm pretty sure I'll get the details straight up. If they can do a repair without an update they will, and if they can't they'll let me know. Pretty simple.
As for wanting to take out Tesla.... lol. Not sure where you get that, but it's a fun accusation. I mean, if I wanted them to fail I wouldn't have bought three of their vehicles at $100k+ each.
Different restriction entirely. They should smartly incorporate the seat occupancy sensor. If the driver isn't present, the car should immediately jump to "Hold the wheel" and quickly progress to "vehicle will slow" or whatever. Then if the driver puts a bag of sand in the seat to override, at least Tesla did what they could and it would be very obvious (not that I think it wouldn't be already) that it was the driver's fault if something were to go wrong.
Additionally, the car should definitely force people to take over when it has insufficient data more quickly than it does today. An example being that ***** in the poorly titled "autopilot tried to kill me video" (which should be titled "I tried to kill myself"). The car obviously did not have enough data already to be operating on that road at all. It was swerving out of the lane to begin with. It should be obvious that sharp corrections like that wouldn't be required under normal conditions and should have prompted the driver to take over well before it did. I honestly think the autopilot tries way too hard to not disengage and not require the driver to take over in some cases where it should definitely require the driver to do so. Surely, if autopilot if functioning correctly there should be no reason to impose restrictions... that makes no sense.
As for restrictions on two lanes or otherwise undivided roads, I agree there needs to be some tuning there. But, they've allowed it with the current release for months now. And, IMO, it's way too late to take back functionality people regularly use, and can regularly use safely.
As an example, today I took NC-16 to and from my home and Charlotte, NC. NC-16 is part divided 4-lane highway, part undivided 4-lane, and part undivided 2-lane. It also has parts with and parts without traffic lights and such, with speed limits between 55 and 65 MPH (think there is even a stretch of 70 MPH somewhere, but I could be mistaken). I used autopilot for the majority of that trip. Speed limit is at worst 55 MPH. Now this is a feature I have today, works perfectly fine when used responsibly, and I've been utilizing since day 1 of release (with roughly 4000 miles of AP-enabled travel since). Now Tesla can take that away and tell me I can't go above 45 MPH in a 55 MPH zone where ~60 MPH is the normal travel speed and auto-steer already works perfectly fine? I don't know if this is the case or not since I don't have the update, but if this is a possibility at all I obviously won't be installing the update.
So, for this type of use, I don't think restrictions are warranted as they remove existing functionality where the system operates fine already. I mean heck, they even demonstrated auto steer at the D event on what was basically a simulated residential and small highway type of street. (Edit append) There are obviously cases where it doesn't work fine, as mentioned, and the driver should just need to take over at that point. The limiting to 45 MPH thing is where they crossed the stupid design decision line. The car should never ignore the driver's command for a set speed unless there is an obstacle ahead. (Reasonable exception being when the driver has checked out and autopilot needs to safely stop the vehicle.) (OT, but building on that there should be an option to disable TACC from slowing in curves. I *hate* this feature.)
If they want, they're welcome to add as many restrictions to existing functionality as they like, enabled by default, provided that there is a button or switch or setting or something that I as the owner and driver of the vehicle can flip, change, specify, or whatever that disables the restrictions and accept the consequences of doing so...... and basically have the same functionality I have today that they didn't seem to have a problem releasing and drivers utilizing for months.
They should be improving this functionality, not crippling it. It's not Tesla's fault if I or someone else does something dangerous with the car or its features. (Exception being a case something like where autopilot does something stupid like accelerate while steering off the road while not allowing the driver to override, but I don't expect that to actually happen.) They demonstrated functionality, finally delivered a year later and 30% into my factory warranty period, and now they want to start clawing back that functionality that we all waited ever so impatiently for? No, Ma'am, not without a fight.
- - - Updated - - -
There's no "I agree" or anything in that image or anything that I had to do when enabling auto steer. It's just a list of suggested use cases and suggested cases where it won't perform perfectly, appropriate for explaining the limitations of the feature. The "Yes" or "No" buttons are for if I want to enable it while in beta, not that I agree to any terms and conditions. Pretty sure the judge in your hypothetical will understand the plain English difference.
Last edited:
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
In this lawsuit-happy world we now live in*, companies are held accountable for failing to deal with what they had reason to believe COULD happen, even if outside the stated usage model. Videos have made it clear that people are using AP in a non-validated/supported way. Tesla did not remove stated functionality for the release. They've only removed the possibility of using it in one way that is not supported by the stated usage model.
I honestly don't see what people are complaining about here. Nothing was removed that was promised. All they did was make it less likely to be used in a way they said it shouldn't be used. Once it was brought to their attention that people were doing that, such as videos like yours, they had no choice but to respond. You may not like the response, but they did not remove 'on ramp to off ramp' functionality.
*Just look at some of the recent posts in this thread stating 'I'll sue!!', if you need an example...
Last edited:
jeffro01
Active Member
I know your clearly smart enough to understand the impact to the brand in such situation. No media outlet is going to give Tesla fair treatment in such a scenario, and I know you know this.
As to the pop up box that's given when you enable AP, I'll admit that I'm not a lawyer but it certainly looked like a T&Cs to me as a regular guy... So I'll simply leave that there since you and Cyberax apparently are in conversations with lawyers while the rest of us aren't.
The attitude the both of you have towards Tesla is quite unfortunate and unreasonable from where I sit. That is of course my opinion, and my opinion alone.
Jeff
That's the thing. There is no way they can reasonably make that decision in software. Unless a Tesla engineer is going to be riding shotgun and making the calls in every Model S using auto steer there is absolutely zero way they can make a system that imposes these restrictions with 0% false positives that limit usage in fully supported use cases. If the false positive percentage is > 0%, then they've removed functionality. Period.
If the definition of use cases for autopilot is strictly "on-ramp to off-ramp", I can get on NC-16 from an on-ramp, and exit it via an off ramp, but still travel through a 55 MPH 2-lane undivided section that includes traffic lights. Is autosteer in v7.1 going to let me do that? Doesn't look that way.
And just touching again on my back seat video specifically, we're talking about a completely different set of restrictions, as mentioned in my previous post.
Dirk, I appreciate that, and agree that everybody has the right to decide what they feel strongly about, and to act on the basis of those feelings. Problem for Tesla is that the union of all of those customer likes/dislikes is a vast, sometimes contradictory set of feelings. So, they cannot possibly please everybody. I think what we are dealing with here is their (and our) learning experience regarding the software-based "evolving" car. Sure, other makers update software, but they don't - for better or worse - often update major features, performance, or UI via software. That is an ambitious undertaking, and we are seeing the fallout - both good and bad. Personally, I'm along for the journey, taking the good with the bad, and so far net-net have a better car each year. For those who feel they've reached a pinnacle on a certain release, I can appreciate the desire to stay there... however it will be increasingly difficult for Tesla to service them, and certain service needs may necessitate an update at some point to some features they do not like. I see no way around that.
- - - Updated - - -
No, not alone. I truly hope all this "I'll sue" garbage is just letting off steam, because nobody wins those things. Though part of me hopes they do sue, because I'm sure their lawyers will advise them to stop pouring it out in the forums and then we don't have to hear about their dissatisfaction ad nauseum (before there's even significant evidence of function yet, in this case!)
+1 to Bonnie. The autopilot software is beta. It's a work in progress. Tesla is right to keep refining it to improve its safety, and that includes continuing to refine the conditions under which it's appropriate or not appropriate to use it. The sense of entitlement here from some owners is just sickening. I don't have autopilot in my classic, but if I did I couldn't imagine responding this way.
Improving safety does not have to be the same as removing existing functionality. I think people are getting this mixed up. As for autopilot being in "beta", that's just CYA talk, and we all know it whether or not it'll be admitted. Tesla has an actual beta program with actual beta testers (early access program, or EAP). They released the feature to end users, now they want to remove parts of the feature that currently work today. Entitlement? I find the fact that this word has been brought up in response to this more than once pretty disturbing since it shows that there is very little critical thinking happening on this issue.
green1
Active Member
How about this, I use it in a situation that it's explicitly designed for, on a 6 lane divided highway with clear lane markings, and it decides incorrectly that I'm on a quiet residential street, how is this a good thing?
It's 100% guaranteed with the announced restrictions just because Tesla has no possible way to tell if you're on the right road or not. I've never, not even a single time, stated that I wanted to use AP in conditions other than what Tesla said it was for. I've only stated that a false positive rate above 0% is both inevitable, and unacceptable.
In simple terms, I'm not going to get the downgraded software until such time as either:
a) the restriction is removed
b) the false positive rate is shown to be zero
c) an update includes a feature that I find more valuable than the one they are removing
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. Tesla can't legally force me to accept a downgrade, and so far we've seen no evidence that they are likely to do so barring regulatory intervention, which also seems highly unlikely as no regulator in my jurisdiction has made any comments about doing so.
It's 100% guaranteed with the announced restrictions just because Tesla has no possible way to tell if you're on the right road or not. I've never, not even a single time, stated that I wanted to use AP in conditions other than what Tesla said it was for. I've only stated that a false positive rate above 0% is both inevitable, and unacceptable.
In simple terms, I'm not going to get the downgraded software until such time as either:
a) the restriction is removed
b) the false positive rate is shown to be zero
c) an update includes a feature that I find more valuable than the one they are removing
I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this. Tesla can't legally force me to accept a downgrade, and so far we've seen no evidence that they are likely to do so barring regulatory intervention, which also seems highly unlikely as no regulator in my jurisdiction has made any comments about doing so.
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
I think you're missing the point that many of us have been making. Limiting use to freeways is not 'removing functionality'. Use on other roads was not part of the functionality promised or provided. Tesla is removing one of the misuse possibilities, not functionality. I understand you believe they should have done it your way. -shrug- Not our decision.
green1
Active Member
And maybe you are missing that it's completely, 100% impossible to remove the functionality with a 0% false positive rate, which means that they ARE removing functionality on freeways, guaranteed. That is removing a part of the promised feature (which they actually still haven't delivered anyway as they said it would be hands free on-ramp to off-ramp, and in the vast majority of cases it simply isn't)
Similar threads
