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

Firmware 7.0

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I don't know which is harder -- creating an App Store and vetting all the apps to be safe, or creating a strong sandbox space that the apps can run in that can ensure that they can't do any damage.
Just use CarPlay to stream video from a separate user-controlled device (probably a phone, but not necessarily). CarPlay provides touchscreen support and audio. And then it'd be trivial to add a simple networked service to control HVAC, get the current GPS position and so on.

The Nav system in Tesla Model S is now embarrassingly bad compared to other premium cars.
 
Just use CarPlay to stream video from a separate user-controlled device (probably a phone, but not necessarily). CarPlay provides touchscreen support and audio.

Android Auto does that too. I would argue that there will be a bit of an uproar if one is supported and not the other. So, either both should be supported or a cross-platform solution should be used instead. I don't think Tesla should pick sides in the Android vs. iOS battle any more than they already have with the lack of keeping their Android app up to par with their iOS app.
 
Yes, certainly. I have both Android (phone) and iOS (tablet) devices and I'd be disappointed if Tesla supported only one of them. Anyway, adding a third-party API support is not terribly complicated, so not doing this is likely a bad strategic decision by Tesla Motors.
 
... and here I was just getting ready to post my top 20 reasons to stay on 6.2 :)

btw, between people posting here and PMing me I know of more people staying on 6.2 than people who have reported having received 2.9.12 :) ... add to that that the people who wish they could upgrade back to 6.2 and the people who were forced by a SC visit to downgrade to v7... it's a substantial number of owners who prefer 6.2...

When I met with the Ranger for the seat belt safety check, he was nothing short of appalled that I was still on 6.2. "You are SO FAR BEHIND!" he repeated several times. He said that if I needed work done, he would not be able to do much without first taking the time to install the update because it was effectively "blocking" any other updates until it was installed. Then he made mention of there being "a lot" of updates after the one I have been holding off (which I assume to be the revisions discussed here) and that catching all those up would be a nightmare. I suggested that would be HIS nightmare if I needed a repair but MY nightmare if I installed it absent a good reason to. He was very nice and polite, but definitely said there is-- basically-- a coding engineer sitting at a desk in Palo Alto cursing out all those non-updated cars. And the Rangers can't override his software, he'd have to manually allow it (after being called).

In short... what's the real issue here? If 7.1 comes out and is amazing, would we need to install 7.0 AND all the subsequent updates in the queue to even GET to 7.1? Could/would Tesla hold our pushes back since we were slow to adopt this one?
 
When I met with the Ranger for the seat belt safety check, he was nothing short of appalled that I was still on 6.2. "You are SO FAR BEHIND!" he repeated several times. He said that if I needed work done, he would not be able to do much without first taking the time to install the update because it was effectively "blocking" any other updates until it was installed. Then he made mention of there being "a lot" of updates after the one I have been holding off (which I assume to be the revisions discussed here) and that catching all those up would be a nightmare. I suggested that would be HIS nightmare if I needed a repair but MY nightmare if I installed it absent a good reason to. He was very nice and polite, but definitely said there is-- basically-- a coding engineer sitting at a desk in Palo Alto cursing out all those non-updated cars. And the Rangers can't override his software, he'd have to manually allow it (after being called).

In short... what's the real issue here? If 7.1 comes out and is amazing, would we need to install 7.0 AND all the subsequent updates in the queue to even GET to 7.1? Could/would Tesla hold our pushes back since we were slow to adopt this one?

I can't say for sure, but the updates appear at least somewhat incremental and don't include everything needed to install all changes made by prior updates. I saw some 6.2 revisions that were only a couple of MB on the wire, where 7.0 was a few hundred. My guess would be that if you skip too many updates that the update package for the one you wanted might not have all of the data needed to bring you up to speed, and possibly fail or require manual intervention from Tesla, and thus a delay of some sort.

Speculation, but it fits with what I've seen.

I mean, it's unlikely the "I love 6.2 and hate 7.0" camp will be able to stay on 6.2 forever. Sure you can probably convince Tesla to not update you in some cases, but most service procedures require the latest firmware be installed as part of the diagnostic procedure since the latest firmware could (and probably does) include bug fixes for some issues. I've had my Model S's in for service more than any other new or new-ish car I've owned. Definitely seems pretty unlikely holding out on 6.2 will last very long. Probably would just be simpler to ditch the little yellow clock and take the plunge. I drove my wife's 7.0 P85 (non-AP) for a couple hundred miles not long ago... and honestly, it's not that bad. Few small gripes like the removal of the date and temp and such, but it works just fine and is fully usable.

Really, at this point it's a lot of drama over very very little and is likely to just cause headaches down the road.

More on topic, has anyone noticed the new update screen with the large yellow estimated time display?

2015-11-30%2013.32.31-crop.jpg


Hadn't seen anyone note this yet... (pic from when service staged 2.7.77 earlier in the week)
 
The "real issue", in my opinion, is that deliberately declining car firmware updates creates real problems for Tesla support and service. Yes, you can be unhappy with some of the changes in a particular update, just like you can be unhappy with changes in an Android or iOS update. But the reality is that your Tesla is now more like a smartphone than a car, continuous change is now part of the ownership experience, and the customer support experience (for the customer and the manufacturer) is much better if all customers are on the current firmware.
Every firmware update will contain some changes that some owners don't like. If Tesla gets enough negative feedback those changes will be changed again in the next version. But going ballistic over things like moving the clock and temperature location from one display to another and refusing to accept a firmware update because of changes like that is not -- on balance -- helpful to the owner or to the company or to resolving the perceived problem.
My opinion.
 
Well, a big part of my concern is that at some point in the 6.x area Tesla stopped sending full firmware images for updates. They started being smaller incremental updates.

What this means is that someone upgrading from 6.2 to 7.1 will not have the incremental updates from in between and probably can't upgrade without a full image now, assuming the OTA system can automatically create an image for this vehicle with the needed updates. Evidence suggests that it will not, and will require service to do the update.

This brings a few thoughts to mind. First, if many people refuse updates Tesla now has to account for this more in their update process on the back end as a primary concern and not an edge case. They have to make sure the process doesn't assume anything about the current state of the vehicle, potentially complicating things. Granted, they should do this anyway, but it may not have been a primary concern.

Given the above, there are potential issues with a 6.2->7.1 type upgrade. Let's say you get the 7.1 OTA and do the update, but some critical module isn't updated correctly because of a change made in 7.0 that wasn't available and for whatever reason the update process didn't catch it. Congratulations, you have a car that needs to be towed to a service center. Worst case a module gets "bricked." I don't think Tesla's software team is this lax, but anything is possible.

Overall, there is no good that can come from refusing updates in this case. Lots of potential disasters, however.

I think it's worth noting that I've not received an OTA update since 7.0 was released and that this is almost the longest I've ever gone without receiving an OTA update. (Longest kind of doesn't count, since I was away from my car for a while)
 
definitely said there is-- basically-- a coding engineer sitting at a desk in Palo Alto cursing out all those non-updated cars.

So if that's a big problem back at home base, the simplest solution to having all cars on the most recent firmware version is to NOT TAKE AWAY things that people want (yes, I know, not all people). Provide a UI upgrade path for people that want that, but also provide a legacy UI path for people that don't. And provide all the back-end module upgrades to everyone. Done.

If people not updating is causing agita in Palo Alto, GREAT! That shows Tesla that they can't do just whatever the F they want and force it down our throats.
 
If people not updating is causing agita in Palo Alto, GREAT! That shows Tesla that they can't do just whatever the F they want and force it down our throats.

Actually, based on everything I've learned about Tesla, it seems like they might just spend the time to make things work better on their end so that it's easier for them to do whatever they want down the road rather than cater to the group of detractors, and make it more difficult for groups like the 7.0 refusal camp.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't forget that these could also include security updates. I wouldn't want to be running Windows XP these days, and 6.2 may end up being the equivalent.

And this ^. I don't know if it's as bad as XP (yet), but I know of at least one or two security fixes in 6.2->7.0.
 
Windows has had this incremental update challenge for years... Sometimes you perform updates, only to find another set of updates become available and are then required, and so-forth. I suspect Tesla has this whole distribution challenge understood and we here can only speculate ... but IMHO, if I were the one creating the process and were forced to make a choice (as I used to sign-off in former lives for other software), I would prioritize optimization of the update process to those users that were more current, and just maintain a process to catch stragglers up -- even if that then took more time or more interaction by the end users.

Again, I'm not pointing my finger at people that have elected to stay on old releases, it's each owner's decision, but not mine as I bought into my MS recognizing there would be both good and bad of Tesla evolving my UI experience. I do agree though that it makes support harder the further someone gets behind in their MS software updates (I'll reference again the Windows, smartphone, server and mainframe analogies). SC Techs (just as my old field computer service techs) cannot realistically be expected to not only do problem determination on a vehicle, but then try to understand the nuances of software releases on what they need to repair or replace beyond anything other than a very high level -- it's simply too complex to deploy that sort of approach out to the field if a company (and Customers) expect repeatable, successful and cost-effective repair actions, no matter what Customers may want. Customers can stay on old releases for a time, but as has been said, their day of reckoning will happen when some sort of SC repair is required.

...and I agree Hank, as some of us have said ad infinitum in various threads, as the fleet grows, Tesla (and Elon) must do a better job of not just doing what they always think is right, but have a real advisory council providing input representing a cross-section of true owners -- not just Sigs, techie-types, etc. That is the only way to successfully grow into a volume market while maintaining customer satisfaction. Future potential buyers and owners (esp for vehicles like M3) are not going to want to be the bit twiddlers or techie-types many early adopters are, nor will they appreciate having changes happen to their UI without advance notice and understanding. The masses simply won't accept that part of the approach Tesla has taken to-date.
 
To each their own. I'm not going to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I just think it's worth noting to those staying on 6.2 the potential hurdles doing so could entail in case they were not aware. It's easy to say, "I'm not upgrading!" when you don't understand all of the pitfalls associated with that decision.
 
It's easy to say, "I'm not upgrading!" when you don't understand all of the pitfalls associated with that decision.

Well, I am one of those still on 6.2. A key point to remember is that I and others have not said we won't ever upgrade unless forced to, but that we want/need certain things before we do. For me, one of the big things was HVAC performance and the ability to read the screen with my prescription sunglasses on. The former was addressed in 2.9.12 but the latter has not been. I drove another area owner's car so I can make the opinions for myself and the first thing I noticed was I could not read the dash with my sunglasses on. Now, I do need to mention that I could see the colors and read the digital speed readout, it was the analog info I couldn't read because of less contrast to the background compared to 6.2. With 2.9.12 out, I am considering upgrading since I can read the most critical component - speed, and HVAC is now "fixed".

As for adapting to change, I concur that when buying the Tesla, I bought into the UI changing some over time. While I'm not jumping up and down extolling the new UI, I'm actually agnostic on its look and feel. So just some "critical" stuff that is holding me back and the rest I'll just adapt to.
 
And this ^. I don't know if it's as bad as XP (yet), but I know of at least one or two security fixes in 6.2->7.0.

Yeah, the disharmony exploits which were promised to be released but never were.

Im not worried at all about the security of my Tesla. If it's remotely exploitable, Tesla can fix it on their end. If it requires access to the car then it only does good for me.

Honestly, been jail breaking my iPhones for years. Never had security issues arise as a result.