I'll tell you how it is different.
Tesla recognized that the way they'd be presenting the number would be confusing to their potential customers. They started work on an explanation for the website that would clear up that confusion. We don't know exactly when Tesla started working on that explanation, but by the time David Noland wrote his article on October 17, 2014 they were already working on it.
Tesla chose to stop working on the explanation. There was nothing official published by Tesla until the JB Straubel blog post a couple of weeks ago, almost a year later.
That makes this situation very different from the ones you listed.
So you're saying the only reason that the Tesla situation is different, is that Tesla is the only example from the above which was kind enough to post a response to customers who were ignorant about a specific aspect of their product? Somehow Tesla trying to educate those who don't have knowledge on the subject somehow makes them the bad people?
That doesn't even change anything. The cell phone companies still won't disclose which cell sites can or will be affected by seasonal changes in signal strength. Retailers still aren't listing the annual electricity costs of a computer. Gas car companies still advertise assuming 0-60 with 1 foot rollouts and hp levels at peak torque levels at sea level only.
Welcome to being a consumer. Educating yourself is a responsibility of being a consumer past what is legally required (which it is not in this case and is standard practice among all US automotive producers/advertisements). If you don't do your research, then there's no excuse for being subject to the consequences. It's no different than why Amazon and other retailers have "Ask a question about this product!" sections. It's no different than how you'll see so many people on TMC ask questions about the car before actually buying it. This literally impacts each and every single product you can possibly buy as a consumer, from fast food to furniture, to all technology to paper clips.
It's not Tesla's responsibility to draft a 2300 page document detailing every tiny little detail on their vehicles. Why stop at being forced to post methodology testing for 0-60? Why not reveal full methodology for metallurgical production of the aluminum on the body? Why not reveal the source code used for the autopilot simulations to exactly quantify how the TACC system works in all situations?
I get it, you're unhappy about the car for some reason. Before I bought my own EV, I had thought that it supported bluetooth media audio--I was wrong. Is it Nissan's fault I bought the wrong trim level? Nope. It's my fault for not asking / assuming / not doing my research that bluetooth calling didn't implicate the existence of bluetooth audio support.
It seems an easier solution--the solution used by every single business out there in the world--is that the most common and important aspects of a product or service are covered, and if more information is required then you simply ask.
It's just the risk and responsibility of the consumer.
I am not sure if I get the gist of your post and your examples are somewhat obtuse, nonsensical, and are poor analogy's or not relevant.
The suggestion given below are basic metrics and are certainly more transparent than what we have so far. So let's ask again...
Why are they obtuse, nonsensical, or a poor analogy? Are they poor because you, personally, already know the answer to those questions? Are they poor because--like the cell phone example--it does not apply to you personally?
I can assure you each and every fact is true, including the fact that endangered eagle nesting can indeed cause rural cell phone customers to completely lose cell service at their home over the period of a few months. You might scoff at that as pointless, but this very specific situation was once a part of my professional work-life and it negatively impacted thousands of customers annually, all of whom continued to pay full price for their degraded service.
"What's wrong with Tesla updating its specs to the following":
- 691 HP combined motor power (550 HP peak output)
- 0-60 in 3.2s (3.6s w/o 1-foot roll out)
There's nothing wrong with them updating to these specs; however, they will lose a competitive advantage as all other performance automakers in the US will not specify the conditions of peak horsepower, nor the fact that 0-60 times include a rollout.
It's no different than how every cell phone provider nowadays is advertising service, but leaves out device/equipment costs. The carriers who initially continued to advertise with equipment costs included, all of a sudden seemed much more expensive than those who legally advertised service costs separately. Thus, all cell phone carriers in the US now advertise without including equipment costs. This is all public information--feel free to look up historical data on subscription retention v. when the advertising campaigns changed for the four major US carriers. It's a competitive disadvantage for Telsa to include those disclosures, because customers will think Tesla's cars are slower than they actually are (because competitors' cars would still have the older, faster numbers). If you're unhappy with it then write a letter to your lawmaker in Washington D.C. to change it.
