Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Firmware 5.8.6/7/8/9/10

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
It was an error on my part, to be sure. He strung the two notions (v6.0 and the SDK) in one continuous stream of thought, and I got so excited I didn't listen to it again to make sure my interpretation was correct. Lesson learned--listen carefully to what Elon is actually saying! :tongue:

EDIT: One question, mostly for any software developers here. Musk suggested that 3rd party apps would be here by 2015--how much lead time would a developer need with an SDK in hand to put together an in-car app that would be polished enough to pass Tesla QC? Obviously that last part would be pure conjecture since we don't know how stringent Tesla will be when it comes to approving 3rd party apps for launch in vehicles, but...ballpark--what would be a guesstimate of development time? 3 months? 6 months?

The reason I ask is that if Musk expects 3rd party apps to be available by, say, the beginning of 2015, shouldn't the SDK be released earlier to give developers time to work apps up?
 
Last edited:
Assuming there isn't anything crazy in the SDK, it uses libraries, languages and tools that people are familiar with... As little as "a few weeks", but more typically 2-3 months.

I would agree that a few weeks for some rudimentary apps to be DEVELOPED, but if there is any sort of certification process, particularly a brand new one being implemented by a company that a) hasn't done it before, b) has lots of other priorities, and c) is under a microscope - like any auto company - regarding safety matters… AT LEAST 6 MONTHS. Then, apply the Tesla time warp multiplier.
 
These apps would run on the center console. I don't think the center console has any drive functions so should not require the kind of vehicle safety certification that you suggest. Also, the SDK could limit or prevent access to vehicle functions accessible via the center console that might alter safety like drive lowering, steering, creep, regen, parking brake, etc.

Further, the apps could be limited to HTML5/JS web applications that are served from TM, or white-listed by a TM server. Since TM could then take down an offending app in real-time their need for an up front certification pass becomes far less necessary.
 
I was taking a test drive with one of the guys in the Houston store and he mentioned that the SDK & valet mode were both coming out soon...
Elon used the word "soon" regarding Valet mode in July, 2013. FYI.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't appreciate being made to seem like I'm making up rumors.
That was not the intent.

To be clear, the rumor is a side concern. My point was that I was hoping threads like this one could remain about fact -- current state of reality -- not speculation. Whether the speculation comes from a TMC member, a Tesla representative, or "the" Tesla representative (Elon) is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

At 3:40 he discusses V6.0 and the SDK and at 5:00 he mentions that they expect to have 3rd party applications by 2015.

My original comment was in error, but I went back and researched it so that we could be clear on Musk's comments at that Q&A.
Thanks for the clarification. This much more closely matches my recollection.

- - - Updated - - -

Right but it is fair deduction to suggest it might. This forum is chock full of fiction and conjecture far more tenuous than that, so don't jump on a poster for making that connection. I think he was contrite enough about implying it was fact.
Disagree. If you want to begin a new conjecture discussion do so. This thread (at one point) was about the fact of released firmware not about the conjecture of future firmware. Now it's muddled.

Maybe the mods should just rename the thread to "firmware discussion, including conjecture".
 
Elon used the word "soon" regarding Valet mode in July, 2013. FYI.


Disagree. If you want to begin a new conjecture discussion do so. This thread (at one point) was about the fact of released firmware not about the conjecture of future firmware. Now it's muddled.

Maybe the mods should just rename the thread to "firmware discussion, including conjecture".

Not saying I want conjecture thread. My point was that you can't avoid some, and you jumped on a relatively new poster (not repeat conjecturer) pretty harshly especially considering his leap not far and he made effort to correct.