FSD license should be tied to owner not vehicle

[rxlawdude]

Building on the idea that your best customer is an existing customer Tesla should consider these points expanded from S4WRXTTCS and other's suggestions of how licensing FSD software may work (and its less capable subsets):

1. Make the license available to purchase even if you don't currently own a Tesla vehicle.
a. Consumers not ready to purchase a vehicle but interested in locking in FSD at the current price can buy now.
b. Each purchase would come with a profile at tesla.com to manage your Tesla account.
c. Tesla gets paid to build a marketing database listing consumers very likely to buy a vehicle in the future in addition to other Tesla products.
d. Software license sales add to Tesla's bottom line; unconstrained by vehicle supply.
e. Refines the business of FSD license sales for use in future third party vehicles.

2. FSD is licensed conditionally to the individual and the first vehicle they apply the license to. Transfers to future Tesla vehicles or new owners upon the sale of the original vehicle may be done with a license transfer fee, i.e. 10% of the current FSD price.
a. Maintains promise of getting the full capability of FSD with consideration for what was paid into the program.
b. Current Tesla vehicle owners are less apprehensive to upgrade to new Tesla models like they are now without the ability to transfer FSD.
c. The decision to bring FSD vehicle trade-ins to Tesla loses some negative stigma associated with not getting good value for purchased FSD.
d. Tesla gets paid on the private and third party dealership transfer of Tesla vehicles every time new owners want an FSD feature.

3. Consumers with multiple Tesla vehicles would still pay for multiple licenses if they want FSD on more than one vehicle.
a. Continues a clean business plan of one license/one vehicle for development cost/risk.
b. They can afford it.

I think until there is anything remotely approaching Level 3 automation, 1(a) is unquestionably nonviable. Who would buy a license for feature-incomplete software (with expectation that it ultimately reach L3) but for which they have no hardware to use it on.

Is this Elon?

 

[setherme]

I think until there is anything remotely approaching Level 3 automation, 1(a) is unquestionably nonviable. Who would buy a license for feature-incomplete software (with expectation that it ultimately reach L3) but for which they have no hardware to use it on.

Is this Elon?

Someone who wants to pay $10k for FSD today rather than $20k tomorrow...

 

[rxlawdude]

Someone who wants to pay $10k for FSD today rather than $20k tomorrow...

That's called coercion, when you have someone pay now under the threat of some much higher price that may or may not exist in the future. So you're buying a pig in a poke, without even being able to use the FSD features already out and those coming "soon."

 

[gearchruncher]

I think until there is anything remotely approaching Level 3 automation, 1(a) is unquestionably nonviable. Who would buy a license for feature-incomplete software (with expectation that it ultimately reach L3) but for which they have no hardware to use it on.

Hey, we agree for once!
The contract for this would be hilarious.

Someone who wants to pay $10k for FSD today rather than $20k tomorrow...

Wow, they really got to you with the FOMO / value going up. Just buy some crypto like Tesla does if you want to do some gambling.

 

[gearchruncher]

That's called coercion, when you have someone pay now under the threat of some much higher price that may or may not exist in the future.

Whoa, really? Tesla did this in the past- FSD was $X if bought with the original car purchase or a higher price if bought even 10 seconds later, even though no functionality for this existed at all (Talking pre-2019 during EAP/FSD days when zero FSD features were out). Was that not coercion? The price even ended up going down after that, so those original buyers paid more than they would have if they had waited.

 

[rxlawdude]

Whoa, really? Tesla did this in the past- FSD was $X if bought with the original car purchase or a higher price if bought even 10 seconds later, even though no functionality for this existed at all (Talking pre-2019 during EAP/FSD days when zero FSD features were out). Was that not coercion? The price even ended up going down after that, so those original buyers paid more than they would have if they had waited.

I'm talking about people that don't even own a Tesla yet.

 

[gearchruncher]

I'm talking about people that don't even own a Tesla yet.

So if you're incentivized to buy FSD as a software license because of suggested future price increases, but you don't currently own the hardware, it would be coercion, but if you are incentivized to buy a SW license but happen to already own the hardware, it's not?

Elon has tweeted multiple times suggesting FSD price is going up in the future and suggesting people buy whole cars or just the FSD upgrade (in the app) before it happens. I really fail to see the difference of how the car purchase is involved in any way given you can buy the SW independently. In all cases they are using the "threat" of future price increases to "coerce" you into buying now even though you get no immediate benefit. Isn't that "So you're buying a pig in a poke"? (Again, all pre-2019 before a single FSD feature was delivered)

 

[rxlawdude]

So if you're incentivized to buy FSD as a software license because of suggested future price increases, but you don't currently own the hardware, it would be coercion, but if you are incentivized to buy a SW license but happen to already own the hardware, it's not?

Elon has tweeted multiple times suggesting FSD price is going up in the future and suggesting people buy whole cars or just the FSD upgrade (in the app) before it happens. I really fail to see the difference of how the car purchase is involved in any way given you can buy the SW independently. In all cases they are using the "threat" of future price increases to "coerce" you into buying now even though you get no immediate benefit. Isn't that "So you're buying a pig in a poke"? (Again, all pre-2019 before a single FSD feature was delivered)

I guess it's like buying a computer program for a more competent computer that hasn't been released. Maybe you would do that, but it seems insanely dumb - what if the price differential is $2,000 while you waited two years before you purchase the vehicle.

Also, by purchasing a software license today, would Tesla be obligated to provide you with new hardware necessary beyond HW3 when you do purchase the vehicle?

Way too many problems to be worth Tesla's time. Unless it's EOQ and they're looking for chump change behind the sofa cushions.

 

[gearchruncher]

I guess it's like buying a computer program for a more competent computer that hasn't been released. Maybe you would do that, but it seems insanely dumb - what if the price differential is $2,000 while you waited two years before you purchase the vehicle.

We're 100% agreed that it's dumb. I was just a bit surprised that it would cross into some legal definition of coercion. All sorts of SW is sold ahead of time (game preorders) with the idea that it "locks in the price.". Heck, even Tesla advertised putting down a $100 non-refundable deposit on the Cybertruck as "locking in FSD pricing." Tesla has really done a ton of work to suggest to people that FSD is going to be very expensive in the future, so they should be spending now.

Also, by purchasing a software license today, would Tesla be obligated to provide you with new hardware necessary beyond HW3 when you do purchase the vehicle?

Every Tesla since 2016 has been sold with the statement "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." The hardware is already advertised as part of the base purchase of the car, so they are already on the hook for HW3/4/whatever is needed. Pre-buying the SW option wouldn't change this as the HW comes from the purchase of the car, and the contract to have capable hardware is not tied to the purchase of the FSD license in any way. Now, totally agreed you have no damages if you don't also attempt to buy the FSD license. (Wait until FSD subs show up "this month" for that situation though!)

I actually already think Tesla shouldn't sell you the FSD license as part of the normal car purchase. It makes it seem too much like part of the car they are delivering to you at that moment like every other car. Allow people to buy FSD in the app, as a separate thing, whenever they want. Then it will be much more clear that you are buying a pure SW option for your car that you could buy any time, and that has specific features *right now*. This will mess up Lease holders and people with loans on the car, but to that I say good- you shouldn't be getting FSD on a Lease or in your loan given how little value it has and the lack of any requirement that it have any more value ever. There were literal lease holders from 2016 that never saw any FSD features in the time of their lease. You shouldn't be able to lease future features.

 

[rxlawdude]

We're 100% agreed that it's dumb. I was just a bit surprised that it would cross into some legal definition of coercion. All sorts of SW is sold ahead of time (game preorders) with the idea that it "locks in the price.". Heck, even Tesla advertised putting down a $100 non-refundable deposit on the Cybertruck as "locking in FSD pricing." Tesla has really done a ton of work to suggest to people that FSD is going to be very expensive in the future, so they should be spending now.


Every Tesla since 2016 has been sold with the statement "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver." The hardware is already advertised as part of the base purchase of the car, so they are already on the hook for HW3/4/whatever is needed. Pre-buying the SW option wouldn't change this as the HW comes from the purchase of the car, and the contract to have capable hardware is not tied to the purchase of the FSD license in any way. Now, totally agreed you have no damages if you don't also attempt to buy the FSD license. (Wait until FSD subs show up "this month" for that situation though!)

I actually already think Tesla shouldn't sell you the FSD license as part of the normal car purchase. It makes it seem too much like part of the car they are delivering to you at that moment like every other car. Allow people to buy FSD in the app, as a separate thing, whenever they want. Then it will be much more clear that you are buying a pure SW option for your car that you could buy any time, and that has specific features *right now*. This will mess up Lease holders and people with loans on the car, but to that I say good- you shouldn't be getting FSD on a Lease or in your loan given how little value it has and the lack of any requirement that it have any more value ever. There were literal lease holders from 2016 that never saw any FSD features in the time of their lease. You shouldn't be able to lease future features.

I'm not suggesting there's a legal approach to "coercion" (although that can invalidate a contract), but more from the ethical side.

Then again, what am I thinking? I teach example after example of unethical actions by companies in biotech. Nothing stops unethical companies or employees until the ethical violation becomes a legal violation. And they get caught.

 

[raptor5244]

This is why it would make much more sense to turn the whole FSD offer into a reasonable monthly subscription. Break up the features as well and let folks decide what they want to subscribe to. Tesla already has the technology to easily do this. They do it already with the $9.99 monthly fee for the streaming music, upgraded maps and traffic features.

I think the FSD take rate would be much higher on a subscription that you could cancel at anytime vs asking for $10k in vaporware. This would put the pressure back on Tesla to deliver the features as promised if they want that healthy revenue stream. Even if the car could fully self drive on the street, you may freakin hate how it drives and it would annoy the crap out of you. For example, my Tesla Autopilot loves to late brake on the highway when traffic starts to back up. Here I am talking to the car out loud, “Tessie, are gonna start braking already?! Tessie! My 50 year old eyes can see all the damn cars stopping ahead and their bright red brake lights, can’t you see them with your 3 forward facing cameras and radar sensors? Damn it, let me just do it!”

I strongly feel they need to let folks subscribe to this software at a reasonable price vs. creating a customer sat issue where folks feel cheated since it doesn’t work as promised and they can’t get a good trade in value for the software or transfer it to another Tesla in the future.

 

[gearchruncher]

can’t you see them with your 3 forward facing cameras and radar sensors? Damn it, let me just do it!”

Don't worry, they are getting rid of radar, that will fix it.

 

[raptor5244]

Don't worry, they are getting rid of radar, that will fix it.

Really? Lol. No radar now, no lidar, just 3 cameras blinded by the sun. I love the aspirational vision and all but I just don’t see how the vision/camera only system can handle all the decision making required. So much of driving is based on experience and anticipation of what will happen next. We stay out of others blind spots, avoid potholes, we avoid driving behind pickup trucks with crap ready to fall out of the bed, we know what roads and lanes to select based on time of day, we know to slow down and create more distance when it rains or snows. We see a biker up ahead on the shoulder and we change lanes to offer more space. As long as expectations are set properly that this system is just something we will babysit for the foreseeable future then fine but marketing this as true full self driving is really over the top imo. I mean last year I was hearing we were going to send our cars to work as robo-taxis while I chill out at home, wtf lol.

 

[gearchruncher]

Really? Lol. No radar now, no lidar, just 3 cameras blinded by the sun. I love the aspirational vision and all but I just don’t see how the vision/camera only system can handle all the decision making required.

See, you can do it with your eyes, so a computer can do it with vision only also. FIRST PRINCIPLES. Look it up and then bathe in the genius that is the Technoking and the clear lead he has by thinking different than all those other idiots.

 

[DJVoorhees]

I agree, but then how could they charge you multiple times for the same thing? Don't see it happening soon.

BINGO!!!!

 

[raptor5244]

See, you can do it with your eyes, so a computer can do it with vision only also. FIRST PRINCIPLES. Look it up and then bathe in the genius that is the Technoking and the clear lead he has by thinking different than all those other idiots.

Lol, Technoking and Master of Coin. Maybe these will be new characters in an upcoming Marvel series? I have no doubt they will eventually pull it off, but I think it will be years from now when everyone has already traded in their current model Teslas.

Do you ever use autopilot on the highway with family in the car? When I do and let the car do its thing everyone looks up and is like turn it off, it is annoying me, lol. There is just something about how it brakes and overreacts, etc. that annoys my passengers. I think the system should learn how to adapt to the owners driving style, otherwise I think folks will just take the wheel and drive themselves instead of having to babysit the system. It is kind of like voice recognition, when it works it is great but if you find yourself having to repeat yourself it is just quicker and less annoying to just push a button yourself.

 

[rxlawdude]

Do you ever use autopilot on the highway with family in the car? When I do and let the car do its thing everyone looks up and is like turn it off, it is annoying me, lol. There is just something about how it brakes and overreacts, etc. that annoys my passengers. I think the system should learn how to adapt to the owners driving style, otherwise I think folks will just take the wheel and drive themselves instead of having to babysit the system. It is kind of like voice recognition, when it works it is great but if you find yourself having to repeat yourself it is just quicker and less annoying to just push a button yourself.

But the v9 rewrite isn't going to use the same algorithms as NoA or AP lane-keeping. So we don't really know how it approaches the phantom braking some have reported. As my first Tesla was a 2015 S 70D, I would agree that "AP1" had a tendency to not recognized stopped traffic ahead, especially in the early implementation, and could for no apparent reason start to decelerate. It did improve over time, and by the time I sold it, was way more likely to properly address stopped traffic. (I still was always on the watch for the stopped traffic ahead and disengaging if the car didn't start slowing down.) Not perfect. This is probably the radar issue, and why it may have continued in subsequent hardware versions.

As I mused in another post, the complaints about FSD progress (or even the viabilty of the new rewrite sans radar input) comes down to that old joke about two old women in the Catskills. One complains how terrible the food is, while the other complains how small the portions are.

 

[gearchruncher]

But the v9 rewrite isn't going to use the same algorithms as NoA or AP lane-keeping.

What data do you have that v9 changes any behaviors on the highway? Current City Streets stuff touches none of the highway code, and people have argued with me that v8 was a "quantum leap" and "complete architectural rewrite" like Elon said because it added city streets to the code base even though it changed nothing else.

It's just as likely that all of Elon's hype only applies to how it steers on city roads as the chance that it completely changes how it works on highways. We have zero data until someone sees the code or actually gets to drive it.

 

[raptor5244]

What data do you have that v9 changes any behaviors on the highway? Current City Streets stuff touches none of the highway code, and people have argued with me that v8 was a "quantum leap" and "complete architectural rewrite" like Elon said because it added city streets to the code base even though it changed nothing else.

It's just as likely that all of Elon's hype only applies to how it steers on city roads as the chance that it completely changes how it works on highways. We have zero data until someone sees the code or actually gets to drive it.

The fact that has taken the neural network this long to figure it all out is not a confidence booster. I only got in the Tesla game in late 2018 with the Model 3 but the hype and FSD was hot back then. It is 2021 and I am not sure what percentage of complete you would call the FSD software at this point. I am also not sure how long people keep cars anymore. For me 5 years would be a long time before I am ready to move on and try something new. 3 years is typical. Lucky for me, I was never really interested in FSD, I actually enjoy driving the car myself. Why should the computer have all the fun?

 

[gearchruncher]

The fact that has taken the neural network this long to figure it all out is not a confidence booster.

I never really thought about it, but now it's kind of funny. The argument lots of people make is that NN's "learn" and do it "exponentially" and that things aren't hard coded and that we're just about to ride the S curve up.
And then they get all excited for a complete rewrite. What are we rewriting if the NN's were working and learning, and isn't a rewrite a reset on all that learning?