Autopilot improvement in "MarioKart Rainbow Road" firmware update?

[green1]

No, I'm disappointed that they took a feature away after already releasing it. Crippled what the engineers came up with by letting the lawyers get involved.
I'm not disappointed by what the Tesla can do, I'm disappointed by the arbitrary and unnecessary restrictions tesla added to it.

 

[chriSharek]

I only took delivery about 2 weeks ago. I researched the hell out of this car - but I am still COMPLETELY AMAZED at the AP features, how good it is, and how Tesla is light years ahead of any competition. For anyone out there waiting for their car - prepare to be amazed.

 

[bhzmark]

If restricting the autopilot to make it safer overall for the entire fleet (like seat belt chimes, and inability to drive with the door open or butt firmly in the seat) means that Tesla can use more of its resources on R&D instead of litigation defense, I'm in favor of those changes and the slight restriction is a small price to pay to help ensure a successful company that uses its cash for productive rather than defensive purposes.

As it is Tesla are MUCH more aggressive than other car companies in allowing their tech to do things quite aggressively. Sometimes I think it is too much and I dread a news report of a summoned or AP'd car doing something that the news will blow out of proportion. Already AP and the related passive safety features have likely saved lives, or at least avoided and minimized many accidents. But all it takes is one weird accident where AP was arguably too aggressive to cause a lot of bad PR despite the overall safety profile of these features. They would be imprudent to not implement certain restrictions and I think the ones that they have are a good balance.

 

[green1]

If they didn't want to offer hands free driving, that's their prerogative, but they shouldn't have advertised that they would if they weren't going to.
And worse yet, they have no right to remove a feature once it's implemented.

Your car would also be safer if they limited it's speed to the speed limit at all times, and disabled the centre screen while driving. Yet I bet you wouldn't be praising them if your next software update made those changes.

 

[NoEggs]

And worse yet, they have no right to remove a feature once it's implemented.

Your car would also be safer if they limited it's speed to the speed limit at all times, and disabled the centre screen while driving. Yet I bet you wouldn't be praising them if your next software update made those changes.

I can appreciate some of the frustrations you express here. In the end, we as customers, did chose to buy into a platform that is dynamically updated. This means that features will come (and go) as Tesla see's fit. We may not agree with their decisions, but doing so is clearly within their legal "right". You are correct about the center screen, I'm rather surprised that they have not locked out the web browser at speed, and would not be surprised to see it go away at some point in the future. (Perhaps after some attorney goes after "the deep pocket" after an accident. - Let's hope full-autopilot beats him/her to that finish line.)

Personally, I'm glad that Tesla has the moxie to try some of the features out - even the short lived ones - knowing they will be criticized both for adding and/or removing them. I don't blame the company for pulling back on features where some customers clearly demonstrate maturity issues creating risk that is incompatible with the feature. It's just the smart action to take in that instance.

 

[RogerHScott]

they took a feature away after already releasing it

So was there a time when AP was not beta prior to its current beta status? That would be really odd if true, but as
a new owner I don't know the history. If it was always beta, then they never "took away" anything because they
never "gave" it in the first place -- that's what "beta" means: "subject to (arbitrary) change, at our whim".

 

[green1]

No, clawing back features is far more likely to get them on the wrong side of a lawsuit than being too permissive.
Removing features that a customer paid for is clearly illegal, with lots of precedent.
Someone suing the manufacturer for their own stupidity in doing something illegal behind the wheel that the manufacturer failed to prevent, is not nearly as likely to suceed, or all car manufacturers would already have been sued out of existence for selling cars capable of driving faster than the highest speed limit out there.

 

[green1]

So was there a time when AP was not beta prior to its current beta status? That would be really odd if true, but as
a new owner I don't know the history. If it was always beta, then they never "took away" anything because they
never "gave" it in the first place -- that's what "beta" means: "subject to (arbitrary) change, at our whim".

Calling something "beta" doesn't give you a free pass on what you promised in your marketing materials.

 

[RogerHScott]

Tesla are MUCH more aggressive than other car companies in allowing their tech to do things

I can only imagine that this is largely due to regulatory agencies not having "caught up". In a weird way it is easier to be radically different than a little different, since the Status Quo Machine will squash the latter but can't even recognize the former to react to it.
Tesla owners are living in the Golden Age (and/or Wild West, depending on your perspective) of electric car development. The pace
of innovation, even from Tesla, is certain to slacken as electric cars become increasingly mainstream.

 

[RogerHScott]

Calling something "beta" doesn't give you a free pass on what you promised in your marketing materials.

You probably disagree, but I think most people would say that it does allow you to take a non-straight, quite-possibly-non-monotonic path to the end goal. As an engineer I can tell you that demands for monotonic progress almost always slow the rate of overall progress.

 

[green1]

As long as they deliver the final (non-beta) product within the promised timeline they can do whatever they want. but unfortunately they haven't. So it really is just false advertising.

 

[RogerHScott]

I must have missed the announcement. When (i.e., by what date) did Tesla say all Model S development would be complete?

 

[bhzmark]

If they didn't want to offer hands free driving, that's their prerogative, but
1. they shouldn't have advertised that they would if they weren't going to.
And worse yet,

2. they have no right to remove a feature once it's implemented.

3. Your car would also be safer if they limited it's speed to the speed limit at all times, and disabled the centre screen while driving. Yet I bet you wouldn't be praising them if your next software update made those changes.

1. Even if they did advertise "hands-free" (and I don't recall that they did), it is their prerogative, and indeed their prudent business decision, to change the product that they sell to reduce excessive product liability risks. They would be foolish not to.

2. Similarly they have a "right" to change their product to remove features that they determine are not safe (i.e., they have no obligation or duty to keep unsafe features). Indeed product liability law would suggest that they could be negligent, and therefor liable, if they DID NOT remove potentially unsafe aspects of the car. In addition to legal liability risk they are also controlling bad PR Risk which is actually where more of the risk is.

For instance, they changed the low setting on the SAS and added battery shields to address the risk of battery punctures from road debris. You may think riding lower and without the weight of shield is a "feature" but it isn't one that Tesla determined was worth the risk of product liability and bad PR. That was a wise choice they made.

3. It is entirely unpersuasive to criticize an action that Tesla DIDN'T take, and that even other car companies do not take, and point out that that sort of excess concern safety applies to a very different action that they did take.

In fact the utter bankruptcy of that last point makes me realize that your arguments are not even operating in the same world of rationla and economic business decision making to assess risks of bad PR and legal liability with consumer features and cutting edge tech.

The only argument that would be worth the space it takes up on this screen is one that argues based on facts and reasons and evidence that the car is safe enough with that feature to keep the PR and legal risks manageable. But the party in the best position to assess that risk is the party with the most data, and that would be Tesla who likely already has loads of data on how the car behaves and how risky it is when following different UI patterns. I"m inclined to defer to their superior data and decision making on that -- and be grateful that they have the wisdom to be far more advanced than any other car company.

 

[green1]

Fact: Tesla marketing promised something, Tesla has not delivered. This is the very definition of false advertising. Something illegal in many jurisdictions.
Fact: Tesla has illegally removed a feature from owner's vehicles that they already had

There is zero legal precedent for any automaker being held responsible for their owners' illegal acts behind the wheel. No automaker has ever been successfully sued for being too permissive with their technology.

There is however lots of precedent for companies being sued and losing when they remove features after sale, or when they fail to deliver on promised features.

From a legal risk avoidance perspective, Tesla have chosen the far riskier path by restricting the product after release, and not offering what they promised.

Your criticism of my rationality and business acumen are your own personal opinions blinded by your worship of Tesla, and not based on facts, or legal precedents.

As for arguments not being worth the screen real-estate. Well, your post was significantly longer than mine.

If you just want to be grateful for any crumbs Tesla decides to throw your way, fine. But understand that most normal people will be very upset when they buy something that is not as advertised, and even more upset when features are removed after purchase.

This is NOT a good long term business plan, they only get away with screwing over their customers right now because they don't have any competition. That will change, and Tesla will either change too, or go out of business, I'd prefer the former, but I'm not really expecting it.

 

[RogerHScott]

Fact: Tesla has illegally removed a feature

Care you state your qualifications for making unequivocal statements about the legality of anything, let alone
this far-from-obvious situation?

 

[green1]

Care you state your qualifications for making unequivocal statements about the legality of anything, let alone
this far-from-obvious situation?

State your qualifications for stating that companies are allowed to reach in to products you have already purchased and remove functionality you paid for.

I'm not sure how much more obvious it gets, if you found out tonight that your refrigerator no longer contained the "keep food cold" feature because the company sent someone in to your house to remove it, you'd be pissed. This is exactly the same thing.

Removing a feature that someone paid money for, after the sale, is both morally, and legally wrong.

 

[davidc18]

I had just got my new MS 90D 2 weeks ago and it was my first time with Auto Pilot and my car was also hugging the right lane and now with this new update, I am smack dab in the middle of the lane and much happier. The only problem I have had with AP misreading speed limits here in Montana comes from our high speed limit sign that says 80 mph for cars is then followed by a 60 mile limit for trucks driving at night and my AP will Detect the 80 and THEN THE 60 and now my Auto Steer will be limited to 65 mph in an 80 mph zone. I can always put pressure on the accelerator with my foot and bring it up to the correct speed until another 80 mph sign appears, but if it has another Truck Speed limit sign, It will happen again. This is only on I-90 that this happens since secondary roads don't have Separate Truck speeds.

+1 - Welcome to the Club.

 

[davidc18]

State your qualifications for stating that companies are allowed to reach in to products you have already purchased and remove functionality you paid for.

I'm not sure how much more obvious it gets, if you found out tonight that your refrigerator no longer contained the "keep food cold" feature because the company sent someone in to your house to remove it, you'd be pissed. This is exactly the same thing.

Removing a feature that someone paid money for, after the sale, is both morally, and legally wrong.

+1 - have to admit that I have been thinking along these lines as well (they have removed a fully functioning feature I've paid for without my permission) and I do expect them to be restored in a (not to) future update.

 

[bhzmark]

Fact: Tesla marketing promised something, Tesla has not delivered. This is the very definition of false advertising. Something illegal in many jurisdictions.
Fact: Tesla has illegally removed a feature from owner's vehicles that they already had

There is zero legal precedent for any automaker being held responsible for their owners' illegal acts behind the wheel. No automaker has ever been successfully sued for being too permissive with their technology.

There is however lots of precedent for companies being sued and losing when they remove features after sale, or when they fail to deliver on promised features.

The conclusory statements of illegality are simply false.

Sounds like this isn't the car for you. You better wait for a car that delivers more aggressive autopilot features that you seek.

By the way I see that you have a P85+ with autopilot. Which autopilot statements had the seller of your car made to you about the autopilot features that your car would have and what statements did you rely on when you made that purchase? Which of those statements turned out to be false? Have you discussed with the seller their (as alleged by you) misrepresentations that they made to you about the features of the car that they sold you? Was that seller Tesla or someone else?

Also see https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/us-automotive-products-liability.pdf

 

[green1]

The conclusory statements of illegality are simply false.

No, they are completely true. You've just been trying to spin it to protect Tesla's image.

Sounds like this isn't the car for you. You better wait for a car that delivers more aggressive autopilot features that you seek.

It's not all or nothing. This is the car for me, I love it, and use the AP on a daily basis. On 7.0. I have the right to stay on the software I chose.

By the way I see that you have a P85+ with autopilot. Which autopilot statements had the seller of your car made to you about the autopilot features that your car would have and what statements did you rely on when you made that purchase? Which of those statements turned out to be false? Have you discussed with the seller their (as alleged by you) misrepresentations that they made to you about the features of the car that they sold you? Was that seller Tesla or someone else?

I bought my car with autopilot used from Tesla after 7.0 was released. One of the features advertised was the autopilot convenience features. The false statements included that the car would drive hands free on-ramp to off-ramp, and that it would automatically change the speed of the vehicle in response to speed limit changes, and that it could be summoned to your front door from your garage on private property. These were stated to be rolled out in a few months after the fall of 2014, and in no possible universe are we still within that timeframe. I have discussed it with Tesla, and they (hillariously) told me they would forward my concern to my local service centre, as if them not developing the software could be fixed by a ranger visit or something.

Also see https://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/us-automotive-products-liability.pdf

I don't have time to read the 47 page document right now, if there's a particular passage that both applies to the jurisdiction I live in, and states that automakers must remove features that they already sold to a customer, after the customer paid, and the car has been delivered, please point out the location within the document.