Frustrated with FSD timeline

[stopcrazypp]

what does elon driving a full speed dev software have to do with anything? that doesn't justifies anything.

It justifies the expectation.

elon/tesla said they will have ap1 parity, on-ramp/off-ramp, self lane changing and smart summon, self parking and autosteer+ done by December.

Where they did say this? They had a vague statement on "expected" release of EAP software (unknown what would be specifically included in that update), but they didn't say they will have that all stuff above done by December. That is just the interpretation of others (turned out to be wrong).

Same issue with this topic. You interpret Elon to mean "Full Self driving capability features in 9 days" others completely disagree.

For the record, until there is discovery, all of us are engaging in speculation. None of us can say for certain what went down behind the scenes.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Where they did say this? They had a vague statement on "expected" release of EAP software (unknown what would be specifically included in that update), but they didn't say they will have that all stuff above done by December. That is just the interpretation of others (turned out to be wrong).

It was not just mere interpretation or extrapolation, though, it was what Tesla said. Nowhere in this do they imply the update would somehow be partial. They describe EAP, expect completing validation and rolling out in a singular software update in December 2016. Only caveat expressed is regulatory approval.

And here we are, mid-April 2017 and EAP is still nowhere near as described:

Discovery might be brutal for Tesla on this. Let's hope they are more open down the road...

 

[lunitiks]

Thread changed title..

 

[stopcrazypp]

It was not just mere interpretation or extrapolation, though, it was what Tesla said. Nowhere in this do they imply the update would somehow be partial. They describe EAP, expect completing validation and rolling out in a singular software update in December 2016. Only caveat expressed is regulatory approval.

And here we are, mid-April 2017 and EAP is still nowhere near as described:

Discovery might be brutal for Tesla on this. Let's hope they are more open down the road...

Exactly as I said, it's interpretation. You interpreted that to mean it includes all the features, but no where did Tesla explicitly say the expected update in December will have all the features.

 

[Dborn]

Interesting question, I'd certainly like to hear views.

An opinion:

Considering that Design Studio marketed EAP as expected to be available in December 2016, which later events have shown that to have been false or at least misleading information (it was nowhere near being ready in December 2016 in the form advertised), and all Tesla's are ordered through that very same Design Studio, certainly it would seem to me a case could be made.

But IMO that is completely beside the point for most people. Most people are probably not looking for a fight or a remedy, they'd just prefer Tesla and Elon clean up this part of their act. It is so unfortunate and unnecessary.

The business model is ordering via the web site. Accordingly, I would expect that whatever was in writing on the web site on the day of the order would be taken as part of the contract of sale, but I am not a lawyer.

 

[ohmman]

The business model is ordering via the web site. Accordingly, I would expect that whatever was in writing on the web site on the day of the order would be taken as part of the contract of sale, but I am not a lawyer.

Well, that's not the purchase agreement, it's the order. You sign the purchase agreement at delivery. But I'm sure there is nuance to what's legally binding and what isn't.

 

[oktane]

Everything on the website plus everything Tesla has stated publicly via Twitter etc. is a representation, functionality and timelines both. The purchase agreements do not state anything to contradict the hype advertising.

 

[xyeahtony]

"expected to" does not mean "will definitely happen." They planned on Dec 2016, but it didn't happen. They waited to make sure what they released would work. And righteously so, i dont want to have autopilot randomly deciding to kill me.

 

[calisnow]

Personally, I'm pleasantly surprised with AP2's progress and performance at this point in its development. I believe Tesla will keep incrementally updating its performance and its feature set every 4-6 weeks for the next couple years. Unlike others here I see no reason to doubt Tesla will get to at least hands off "sunny weather" in-town self driving on this sensor suite - it may take a board upgrade but they've built that capability in. All the rest is software and network training.

I have an AP1 car and also now am AP2 car. Perfectly satisfied with both in terms of value for money.

 

[whitex]

"expected to" does not mean "will definitely happen." They planned on Dec 2016, but it didn't happen. They waited to make sure what they released would work. And righteously so, i dont want to have autopilot randomly deciding to kill me.

Yep, Tesla wording for EAP and FSD promises absolutely nothing, because all the wording is so vague. 20 years from now they can still claim FSD is coming for your AP2 car, oh, except your sensors are now 20 years old and therefore non-functional, but that's OK, you can buy a new Tesla which will self drive soon.

 

[oktane]

"expected to" does not mean "will definitely happen." They planned on Dec 2016, but it didn't happen. They waited to make sure what they released would work. And righteously so, i dont want to have autopilot randomly deciding to kill me.

Actually it kind of does. As in, I expect you will not be late to the funeral. By any reasonable assumption you will be there on time. Contrast that with I might be late to the party tonight.

 

[ohmman]

Actually it kind of does. As in, I expect you will not be late to the funeral. By any reasonable assumption you will be there on time. Contrast that with I might be late to the party tonight.

I expected my wife to clean up the dishes after I spent three hours cooking today. Turns out I was wrong. Definitely didn't happen.

 

[drklain]

Everything on the website plus everything Tesla has stated publicly via Twitter etc. is a representation, functionality and timelines both. The purchase agreements do not state anything to contradict the hype advertising.

This has been discussed before. Actually those are not representations with respect to the purchase contract. The contract has language which explicitly states that the contract is the sole agreement and not subject to anything else expressed orally or in writing...

 

[Black/Black MS]

Inexcusable. I've been an evangelist for Tesla and feel horrible for the people I've convinced to buy AP2. They feel ripped off.

 

[whitex]

This has been discussed before. Actually those are not representations with respect to the purchase contract. The contract has language which explicitly states that the contract is the sole agreement and not subject to anything else expressed orally or in writing...

The purchase contract does not include things like warranty, that doesn't mean warranty doesn't apply.

 

[MarkS22]

This has been discussed before. Actually those are not representations with respect to the purchase contract. The contract has language which explicitly states that the contract is the sole agreement and not subject to anything else expressed orally or in writing...

A company can't make false claims or promises and then just hide behind a purchase agreement. It doesn't work that way. There are also unfair business practices. I know we don't care about those evil ICE companies, but imagine this was reversed: The CEO of GM tweets the Bolt is "expected" to be faster, cheaper, and safer than the Model 3 by June 2017. It's "expected" to have better self driving, stop at red lights, and go coast to coast without user intervention. It's "expected" to have a larger charging network by the end of 2017. Can't we all see how that could harm Tesla if that's the public belief? Might someone read those claims (not rumors, but official CEO accounts on social media, on the official web site, or spoken to credible news sources at PR events) and decide to purchase a Bolt instead of a Model 3? What if they repeatedly kept doing that? Imagine missed deadlines were jokingly referred to as "GM time." How would a GM purchase agreement, if that was a legal defense, protect Tesla from lost sales?

Let me be clear: My P85D is the best car I've ever driven. I'm thrilled with it. (My other car, a Mercedes, feels downright primitive compared to it.) But when you have seven pages of people debating the semantics of promises, legal terminology, "expected" verses "guaranteed", missed deadlines, sales contracts superseding marketing claims... I mean, that's a problem when you get to the mass market. And if we want Tesla to succeed (as I do), we can't let it slide, just as we wouldn't want other companies to over-promise at Tesla's expense.

At this point, Tesla has the best "self-driving" (i.e. driver assist) capability of any car on the road now. They have the best charging network. They have incredible performance. They have the best OTA firmware system. And they have arguably the best sensor suite (HW 2.0) learning and getting better every day. They have such a lead they don't need to over-promise. When you're starting out and more of a luxury niche, owners cut more slack. But this just won't go over well outside early adopters. I'm already seeing it with the newest round of Model S owners.

Personally, I don't particularly mind the delays especially when they over-deliver in other areas. They increased the speed of the P85D's 0-60 with a firmware update... I can cut slack on stop sign recognition. But this is the blessing and curse of OTA updating vehicles.

I just think we need to step back and be able to say "I love Tesla and its mission but I'd really like to see more accountability on promises." If there are unexpected problems, communicate them. If it happens often, wait until the product is further along before suggesting a feature is coming soon. If they make a promise and can't make good, upgrade the car to comply at no cost or offer money back on the feature. Stand behind your word and the masses will come.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Musk apparently had to ship AP2 because he didn't have the right to continue to ship AP1. Considering AP2 status today it would have been better to ship AP1 longer. Later this year we will see more advanced autodrive from major manufacturers. But AP1 still looks good today, and Tesla could have avoided the AP2 kerfuffle.

I am not sure.

I think Tesla shipped AP2 once the hardware was ready and to create one more demand-lever for 2016. Software-readiness be damned.

The demand lever was further made better by telling everyone this is what EAP would be released as in December 2016...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

@stopcrazypp

I think this point should finally prove to you Mobileye was not part of the October 2016 announcement:

Exactly, not only was AP2 car started being manufactured in late sept. But included in the announcement is the fact that the new cars will lack many standard basic safety features such as AEB, or even simple cruise control. that in of itself tells you that it won't have mobileye eyeQ3. there is without a doubt that mobileye was completely out the equation for that announcement and December promise.

Elon even said in the ap2 announcement press conference that ap1 cars would be better than ap2 cars for acouple months.

The thing is, Mobileye was out in September/October 2016 when Tesla started building those AP2 cars. But we all had word from Tesla that by December 2016 we would have Enhanced Autopilot and - by Elon's words - it would be a lot better than AP1 by December 2016.

If Tesla had thought during this announcement that the Mobileye chip would be there in the car, the announcement would have been quite different. It must have been.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

A company can't make false claims or promises and then just hide behind a purchase agreement. It doesn't work that way. There are also unfair business practices. I know we don't care about those evil ICE companies, but imagine this was reversed: The CEO of GM tweets the Bolt is "expected" to be faster, cheaper, and safer than the Model 3 by June 2017. It's "expected" to have better self driving, stop at red lights, and go coast to coast without user intervention. It's "expected" to have a larger charging network by the end of 2017. Can't we all see how that could harm Tesla if that's the public belief? Might someone read those claims (not rumors, but official CEO accounts on social media, on the official web site, or spoken to credible news sources at PR events) and decide to purchase a Bolt instead of a Model 3? What if they repeatedly kept doing that? Imagine missed deadlines were jokingly referred to as "GM time." How would a GM purchase agreement, if that was a legal defense, protect Tesla from lost sales?

Let me be clear: My P85D is the best car I've ever driven. I'm thrilled with it. (My other car, a Mercedes, feels downright primitive compared to it.) But when you have seven pages of people debating the semantics of promises, legal terminology, "expected" verses "guaranteed", missed deadlines, sales contracts superseding marketing claims... I mean, that's a problem when you get to the mass market. And if we want Tesla to succeed (as I do), we can't let it slide, just as we wouldn't want other companies to over-promise at Tesla's expense.

At this point, Tesla has the best "self-driving" (i.e. driver assist) capability of any car on the road now. They have the best charging network. They have incredible performance. They have the best OTA firmware system. And they have arguably the best sensor suite (HW 2.0) learning and getting better every day. They have such a lead they don't need to over-promise. When you're starting out and more of a luxury niche, owners cut more slack. But this just won't go over well outside early adopters. I'm already seeing it with the newest round of Model S owners.

Personally, I don't particularly mind the delays especially when they over-deliver in other areas. They increased the speed of the P85D's 0-60 with a firmware update... I can cut slack on stop sign recognition. But this is the blessing and curse of OTA updating vehicles.

I just think we need to step back and be able to say "I love Tesla and its mission but I'd really like to see more accountability on promises." If there are unexpected problems, communicate them. If it happens often, wait until the product is further along before suggesting a feature is coming soon. If they make a promise and can't make good, upgrade the car to comply at no cost or offer money back on the feature. Stand behind your word and the masses will come.

This post deserves a medal.

Very, very, very well said @MarkS22.

 

[calisnow]

A company can't make false claims or promises and then just hide behind a purchase agreement. It doesn't work that way. There are also unfair business practices. I know we don't care about those evil ICE companies, but imagine this was reversed: The CEO of GM tweets the Bolt is "expected" to be faster, cheaper, and safer than the Model 3 by June 2017. It's "expected" to have better self driving, stop at red lights, and go coast to coast without user intervention. It's "expected" to have a larger charging network by the end of 2017. Can't we all see how that could harm Tesla if that's the public belief? Might someone read those claims (not rumors, but official CEO accounts on social media, on the official web site, or spoken to credible news sources at PR events) and decide to purchase a Bolt instead of a Model 3? What if they repeatedly kept doing that? Imagine missed deadlines were jokingly referred to as "GM time." How would a GM purchase agreement, if that was a legal defense, protect Tesla from lost sales?

Let me be clear: My P85D is the best car I've ever driven. I'm thrilled with it. (My other car, a Mercedes, feels downright primitive compared to it.) But when you have seven pages of people debating the semantics of promises, legal terminology, "expected" verses "guaranteed", missed deadlines, sales contracts superseding marketing claims... I mean, that's a problem when you get to the mass market. And if we want Tesla to succeed (as I do), we can't let it slide, just as we wouldn't want other companies to over-promise at Tesla's expense.

At this point, Tesla has the best "self-driving" (i.e. driver assist) capability of any car on the road now. They have the best charging network. They have incredible performance. They have the best OTA firmware system. And they have arguably the best sensor suite (HW 2.0) learning and getting better every day. They have such a lead they don't need to over-promise. When you're starting out and more of a luxury niche, owners cut more slack. But this just won't go over well outside early adopters. I'm already seeing it with the newest round of Model S owners.

Personally, I don't particularly mind the delays especially when they over-deliver in other areas. They increased the speed of the P85D's 0-60 with a firmware update... I can cut slack on stop sign recognition. But this is the blessing and curse of OTA updating vehicles.

I just think we need to step back and be able to say "I love Tesla and its mission but I'd really like to see more accountability on promises." If there are unexpected problems, communicate them. If it happens often, wait until the product is further along before suggesting a feature is coming soon. If they make a promise and can't make good, upgrade the car to comply at no cost or offer money back on the feature. Stand behind your word and the masses will come.

With all due respect I imagine they're bright enough to know that the mass market is not the same as the luxury market and that they are planning for it. I don't think Tesla needs the peanut gallery from TMC to hold them accountable for anything - they've grown into the US's most valuable car company not because they are idiots.