FSD via monthly subscription in the future?

[SoCalMike]

If you didn’t buy FSD but have current hardware and Tesla offered FSD via a monthly subscription, would you subscribe and at what price? I’m sure it’s just a matter of time...

For those with older hardware, possibly paying a one time upgrade fee of $_ then a monthly fee of $_? As it stands now there are many people that won’t pay full price but probably would subscribe (even with the current capabilities). A subscription will make even more sense as the full price increases. It would probably bring in more revenue in the end for Tesla and help used car sales too.

I apologize if there is another thread on this topic.

Thoughts?

 

[Tam]

...monthly subscription...

Some people like subscription, I myself just like to pay once and forget about monthly payment for life.

That's also what I do with buying my own internet modem once instead of paying a monthly modem rental fee.

Same with Tesla Supercharger fee. I prefer it to be built-in or a one time fee like they did for the Model S 60 in the early days who had the option to pay $2,000 for Tesla Supercharger access for life.

 

[ucmndd]

I think it would have to be absurdly priced for Tesla to entertain it as an option.

Think about it - $7,000 spread over five years is $116 a month. Would you pay that much per month for any extended period of time?

 

[SoCalMike]

I think it would have to be absurdly priced for Tesla to entertain it as an option.

Think about it - $7,000 spread over five years is $116 a month. Would you pay that much per month for any extended period of time?

Good point. It would certainly need to be less than that and consider future owner subscriptions as well (life of the car). I think it makes sense for cars with the latest hardware who aren’t willing to pay the full price. It’s revenue Tesla is losing.

 

[ewoodrick]

Not gonna happen

 

[ucmndd]

It’s revenue Tesla is losing.

ONLY if offering it monthly entices enough people to subscribe to offset the likely decline in people who currently pony up the $7k at purchase time, which I think is highly unlikely. I think Tesla would net LOSE revenue by offering a FSD subscription, almost certainly.

 

[OrbiterTI4]

This is exactly what my coworker wants. He drives a Leaf to/from work. He makes an 850 mile one-way trip every summer and winter (along a route with Superchargers). He has kept his Prius explicitly for those trips, but has said "if I could get a Tesla and just pay for AP/FSD on my road trips, I'll buy tomorrow, since I would never use it on the city streets I drive to/from work".

 

[beatle]

If they did it, I could see them offering both a "lifetime subscription" which is effectively what they have now, and then a subscription based service. I could also see them removing the lifetime subscription on used cars. Right now the feature is attached to the car, but just like FUSC and premium connectivity, FSD may go the way of the dodo if Tesla takes possession of the car for resale again.

 

[boonedocks]

Good point. It would certainly need to be less than that and consider future owner subscriptions as well (life of the car). I think it makes sense for cars with the latest hardware who aren’t willing to pay the full price. It’s revenue Tesla is losing.

........and for that reason it will not happen. I know Tesla has a habit of screwin$ past owners/buyers but offering something substantially cheaper monthly than one price up front would kill all future FSD purchases as as well as create a whole new group of disgruntled owners.

 

[Jffurlan]

I used to think that this would be a silly financial idea for Tesla, until I drove my Model 3 in the snow and realized you can’t even activate Autopilot. So considering 5-6 months out of the year I wouldn’t be be able to turn on FSD, I’d have a real hard time paying 9.2k (Canadian) for it. Just doesn’t make sense to pay full price for something I can half use.

Because of that, a monthly subscription would be perfect. Assuming my commute uses NOA (which I believe it does) I’d happily pay $100 a month, no term, for the months I’d need it.

Especially if FSD prices keep going up, Tesla is more and more unlikely to ever get that money out of me. But a subscription would get them revenue for hardware and software that I have but am not fully using.

 

[boonedocks]

I used to think that this would be a silly financial idea for Tesla, until I drove my Model 3 in the snow and realized you can’t even activate Autopilot. So considering 5-6 months out of the year I wouldn’t be be able to turn on FSD, I’d have a real hard time paying 9.2k (Canadian) for it. Just doesn’t make sense to pay full price for something I can half use.

Because of that, a monthly subscription would be perfect. Assuming my commute uses NOA (which I believe it does) I’d happily pay $100 a month, no term, for the months I’d need it.

Especially if FSD prices keep going up, Tesla is more and more unlikely to ever get that money out of me. But a subscription would get them revenue for hardware and software that I have but am not fully using.

Which is exactly why I don't think it would ever happen. That's a six year payback IF you subscribed every month. As you stated you would entrain it 5-6 months out of each years you are talking about a 14 year payback. Don't see that happening and they would kill full price up front sales.

 

[bob_p]

Once FSD is approved for operation, it's highly likely we'll transition to having FSD as a standard option - and then when all manufacturers have approved FSD, there could even be a mandate that all vehicles must have FSD.

After charging thousands of dollars for owners who purchased FSD at delivery or paid for the upgrade after delivery, highly unlikely Tesla could come back with a monthly subscription, allowing owners to get FSD at a huge discount.

What may happen - Tesla could offer a one-time, limited-time, discount for vehicles without FSD activated. Because there is a hardware cost for upgrading to HW3, they could charge the cost of the HW3 upgrade (which might require MCU1 to MCU2 upgrade), plus a discount on the current FSD activation cost. And if owners fail to take the last opportunity to get FSD with the discount, they won't get another chance.

Since those owners had already decided against FSD - this is new revenue that Tesla would not be getting without the discount - and something they should also do with any other software upgradable features (battery packs, charging, …).

 

[SoCalMike]

Great feedback so far, it will be interesting to see what they offer in the future.

 

[Ande]

FSD is not going to happen anytime soon.
the way Tesla *****d over us wit 2019.40.2.2 firmware malware, just to please the corrupt EU and it's lobbyists/car-makers, tells me that whatever innovation/advantage Tesla may have, can be nerfed at ANY TIME by EU.

There is no more point in hoping for FSD or any other innovation to work reliably, unltil the german/french car industry maybe catches up in 8 years.

I feel that Tesla destroyed my AP just to please them, and DO NOT care about existing customers.
nor can I trust that any feature I purchase will work as good as it technically can, because once it is better than the german outdated technology, it is NOT likely to be left alone to work as intended.

 

[ucmndd]

I feel that Tesla destroyed my AP just to please them, and DO NOT care about existing customers.

Oh FFS.

They “destroyed” your AP because the law told them they have to. The government doesn’t give two squirts how much Tesla cares for their customers. You’re acting like they had a choice to screw you.

 

[DukeofURL]

the way Tesla *****d over us wit 2019.40.2.2 firmware malware, just to please the corrupt EU and it's lobbyists/car-makers, tells me that whatever innovation/advantage Tesla may have, can be nerfed at ANY TIME by EU.

There is no more point in hoping for FSD or any other innovation to work reliably, unltil the german/french car industry maybe catches up in 8 years.

I feel that Tesla destroyed my AP just to please them, and DO NOT care about existing customers.

I mean, when the government tells your company to do something different in their country than you do it elsewhere, you have two options:
A) Continue doing it the way you want, damn the man. (This is why Uber is banned in a number of places)
B) Work with them and temporarily make changes they require, with hope you can change them in the future.

Both options suck.

 

[Battpower]

I think there is more likelihood that once we are done training the NN's to drive better than a 5 year old on a lawn tractor, and then allowing loads of time for each jurisdiction to agree to authorize anything, and a few setbacks with cars driving up embankments or into lakes..... when the time comes that Tesla really has a solid product and demonstrably safe software maintenance regime, they won't want to sell the end product. They will let you 'buy' something just a little better than we have today in FSD, that will then entitle you to pay a monthly fee to run the full blown offering.

Just like premium connectivity, the temptation of a revenue stream for Tesla will be too much to avoid.

That was a bit spooky. I just posted this on another thread discussing the value of FSD if it was actually approved. Then saw this thread.

 

[bob_p]

Regulations tend to play catch-up on new technologies - and we shouldn't be surprised to see regulations impose restrictions on the use of AP/FSD.

As of today, there is no regulatory process in place to approve AP (driver assist) and FSD (unassisted) driving. As the AP/FSD systems start driving under more conditions, it would be reasonable for a process to be put into place that requires validation and approval before these systems can operate - which include features like auto lane change or navigate on AP.

And validating FSD is not going to be simple - in order for governments or insurance companies to allow vehicles to operate without driver monitoring, it's likely some form of standardized testing will be required to certify the software is able to operate the vehicle safely.

So not only are we likely years away from the technology being capable of FSD - unless there is also work in parallel on how to certify FSD, we could wait even longer before FSD vehicles will be allowed to operate without a driver.

 

[Battpower]

wait even longer before FSD vehicles will be allowed to operate without a driver.

and operating without a driver must mean that the AI provider / car manufacturer must somehow be involved in the insurance cost / risk chain since there is no other party to realistically hold responsible. I suspect that before mainstream carriers would consider taking on self-driving risks, they would expect to see some real data over some years, which would be best established by manufacturers or others invested in the manufacturing process taking on those risks themselves.

 

[bob_p]

The manufacturers want vehicle owners to be responsible for any accidents - since the vehicle owner has to make the decision to allow the vehicle to operate without a driver - so if there is an accident without a driver present, it was the vehicle owner who decided to allow the vehicle to drive itself.

On the other hand, the FSD software is essentially a driver - so the liability for an accident might be shared between the vehicle owner and the FSD software provider (vehicle manufacturer).

Though if the accident is caused by a defect in the software, don't see how the manufacturers would be able to avoid liability - unless a law is passed clearing them of any responsibility for accidents caused while operating under FSD.

Resolving insurance liability could take longer to resolve than getting the software working...