FSD Timeline Promises (summary)

[Knightshade]

GM owns Cruise who's going to deploy robotaxis any day now (for the last couple years. haha.) and they claim that the Origin will cost as much as a regular SUV. Theoretically they could make a consumer version someday. Very unlikely any time soon though.

Yeah- I'm about as worried as Cruise making a consumer vehicle as I am Waymo, which is 0.

If Mobileye ever gets their driverless software working it would have to be licensed to another manufacturer unless you think they're going to start making cars.

They won't make cars, but if they get L4+ working they'll sell it to anybody who wants it.

I bet that'd even include Tesla if ME got to L5 while Tesla is still releasing L2 FSB Beta 420.69.

So you're back to just picking the best actual car since they'd all be running the same self driving system.

And that's gonna be Tesla based on how far behind everyone else is on the rest of their product.

 

[daniel]

GM and Ford ain't developing squat though.

They're both using Mobileye systems.

In some cases still using the system that Tesla did for AP1.

My point is that the first company to offer to sell me a true driverless car is likely to get my business. I don't care whether they developed it themselves or licensed the technology. If some Chinese company I've never heard of and whose name I cannot pronounce* develops the tech and leases/sells it to any car company willing to pay, I'll buy the car.

If Ford and GM and Tesla all license the tech, I'll buy the Tesla. But if Ford licenses it and Tesla says no, because their own system will be ready "real soon now," I'll buy the Ford. I'm not going to pay Tesla now just on the hope that they'll be first, or neck-and-neck for first. And I'm certainly not going to pay for FSD for a car I might not own anymore when FSD finally becomes a reality. Because for me, the bottom line is that I don't believe that driverless tech will be in a consumer car within five years, and my own guess would be between ten and fifteen years.

I would bet money that in five years from today it will still not be possible for an ordinary consumer to buy a car that can drive itself from L.A. to NYC with nobody in it. Even if there's somebody at each charging station to plug it in. This is what Elon was promising several years ago Tesla would be selling long before now. (A car you could summon from across the country!) And it wouldn't even need someone to plug it in at the charging stations.

*My Zap Xebra was built in China by a company I'd never heard of and whose name I could not pronounce. It was a P.O.S. and I loved it!

 

[not-Martin]

Look, you can't rely on what the CEO of a company says and predicts. This is obvious right?

What is baffling is I can't remember any CEO making such wild predictions related to the company, products, capabilities ever...anywhere...at least not this high profile. And continues to basically get a pass.

I’d argue that when there are so many repeated & doubled down statements, it can no longer be accepted as blind optimism. I wonder if a legal argument for fraud can be made or at least unconscionable conduct

 

[Knightshade]

I’d argue that when there are so many repeated & doubled down statements, it can no longer be accepted as blind optimism.

Why?

Given it's something that's never been done, nobody knows how long it'll take.

In fact Tesla specifically tells you that- during purchase- regarding future features. Nobody knows when they'll be able to be delivered.

That the guy in charge remains optimistic is hardly unusual. Hell, VW was "optimistic" they'd be the world leader in EVs by 2018.

I wonder if a legal argument for fraud can be made or at least unconscionable conduct

Not a winnable one, no. Which is why nobody's wasted money filing such a suit.

Especially when, again, you're clearly told what you actually get with your purchase during the purchase.

 

[GeoffEV]

Why?

Given it's something that's never been done, nobody knows how long it'll take.

In fact Tesla specifically tells you that- during purchase- regarding future features. Nobody knows when they'll be able to be delivered.

That the guy in charge remains optimistic is hardly unusual. Hell, VW was "optimistic" they'd be the world leader in EVs by 2018.




Not a winnable one, no. Which is why nobody's wasted money filing such a suit.

Especially when, again, you're clearly told what you actually get with your purchase during the purchase.

Except for the fact that the FSDbeta has been released to a limited number of ordinary owners who did nothing different than what every other early access FSD purchaser did. That discrimination should be actionable in civil court. But, without some deep pockets to fund the legal adventure, the argument is moot.

 

[Knightshade]

Except for the fact that the FSDbeta has been released to a limited number of ordinary owners who did nothing different than what every other early access FSD purchaser did. That discrimination should be actionable in civil court.

No. It's really, really, not.

Nobody was promised "access to a limited release test beta that hasn't been certified for wide distribution"

This isn't even an accurate use of the word discrimination, legally speaking for a civil suit.

 

[Matias]

Especially when, again, you're clearly told what you actually get with your purchase during the purchase.

If one purchased car 2019, when was he informed, that ”automatic driving on city streets“ is not coming 2019, when Tesla webpage explicitly said, it was coming later that year?

Autopilot

Learn how to use Autopilot on the Model S, Model X and Model 3.

web.archive.org

 

[Knightshade]

If one purchased car 2019, when was he informed, that ”automatic driving on city streets“ is not coming 2019, when Tesla webpage explicitly said, it was coming later that year?

You're told what you get now though. (and even what you get in the future, post march 2019, does not promise the L5 driving some people think Tesla is selling to consumers today).



I've already said multiple times, in multiple threads, the late delivery of city streets would be one of the few examples of a valid legally actionable broken promise from Tesla.

Similar to the lawsuit when AP2 first launched and it took ~a year to deliver most basic AP functionality.

Though- similar to that suit, I expect it'd amount to a settlement of a few hundred bucks per owner after years of litigation, but millions to the lawyers- assuming they've actually delivered city streets by the time the suit is settled.

 

[Matias]

Though- similar to that suit, I expect it'd amount to a settlement of a few hundred bucks per owner after years of litigation, but millions to the lawyers- assuming they've actually delivered city streets by the time the suit is settled.

No ought from is.

 

[GeoffEV]

No. It's really, really, not.

Nobody was promised "access to a limited release test beta that hasn't been certified for wide distribution"

This isn't even an accurate use of the word discrimination, legally speaking for a civil suit.

Really, really apologize for my use of the word "discrimination" - sorry that I triggered you!

Of course, the type of discrimination that I am referring to is Tesla's arbitrary denial of a service to customers who have already paid-in-full for FSD. The delay of general release is total nonsense as EVERYONE who has used TACC or NAP or any other driver's assistance feature has safely intervened and disengaged these more times than we've bothered to count. We are ready for the better version and want it last Christmas, but would gladly and gratefully take it today.

Are you such a FanBoy that any mention of dissatisfaction with Tesla by customers who paid for FSD or otherwise requires your hair-splitting chastisement? Also, have you paid for FSD? If not, then why not?

 

[daktari]

I guess that in my country's jurisdiction, selling a product named "A" with unambiguous capabilities between 2016-2019, and then suddenly start selling a different product from 2019, also named "A" with some substantial differences hidden within the same text, without explicitly informing buyers, will get the seller in trouble for false marketing. Seller will need to refund and will also get fined.
But our laws support the working amount more than the big companies.

 

[daniel]

I’d argue that when there are so many repeated & doubled down statements, it can no longer be accepted as blind optimism. I wonder if a legal argument for fraud can be made or at least unconscionable conduct

Why?

Given it's something that's never been done, nobody knows how long it'll take.

In fact Tesla specifically tells you that- during purchase- regarding future features. Nobody knows when they'll be able to be delivered.

Tesla made it clear when I bought my car that they did not know when my car would be able to drive itself with nobody in it (assuming I paid for "FSD") but they stated categorically that it would be able to drive itself with nobody in it (again assuming I paid for "FSD.") Promising that my car would have this ability contains the implied promise that it would have this ability some time during the expected service life of the car.

If they can deliver during the service life of the cars involved, they've kept their promise. If all or most of the first production run of cars on which owners had paid for "FSD" are out of service due to normal aging and wear & tear, then they are in default of their promise. They also promised that all these cars had all necessary hardware and that only software was lacking. If when they finally achieve true driverless operation it requires hardware that cannot be retrofitted onto those first "FSD"-equipped cars, then they are in default of their promise.

I think it was reckless and dishonest to sell something that did not yet exist, and more so when they implied that even though the exact timing could not be known, that it was not far away.

 

[Knightshade]

Really, really apologize for my use of the word "discrimination" - sorry that I triggered you!

Less triggering and more "making ridiculous claims incredibly far from any legal or factual basis"

Of course, the type of discrimination that I am referring to is Tesla's arbitrary denial of a service to customers who have already paid-in-full for FSD.

Nothing in your paid-in-full FSD includes "pre-general-release software testing" so your claim continue to be based 0% on actual facts or legal contracts.

Are you such a FanBoy that any mention of dissatisfaction with Tesla by customers who paid for FSD or otherwise requires your hair-splitting chastisement?

I'm not sure why you find anyone pointing out your statements are factually untrue, and deeply so, to be a "fanboy"

If you don't want people pointing out the words you use are wrong, especially when you erroneously try and make a legal claim around them, learn what they mean before using them.

Unless you mean a fan boy of facts.

In which case- GUILTY!

 

[GeoffEV]

Less triggering and more "making ridiculous claims incredibly far from any legal or factual basis"





Nothing in your paid-in-full FSD includes "pre-general-release software testing" so your claim continue to be based 0% on actual facts or legal contracts.





I'm not sure why you find anyone pointing out your statements are factually untrue, and deeply so, to be a "fanboy"

If you don't want people pointing out the words you use are wrong, especially when you erroneously try and make a legal claim around them, learn what they mean before using them.

Unless you mean a fan boy of facts.

In which case- GUILTY!

"...far from any legal or factual basis" - really?! Narcissistic much? So, you see yourself as the judge, jury and executioner for anyone who's dissatisfied and has the audacity to publicly call foul on Elon's dishonest myriad FSD sales pitches and for Tesla denying FSD beta to the vast majority of its paid customers? Well, ok - yup, I'm guilty of being an innocent dupe for paying $8K extra for what's tantamount to AP.

Also, like nearly everyone else, I clicked on my Tesla's UI "Advanced" 'Software Update' button which, apparently, is akin to pressing an elevator's "Close Door" button. But, I was specifically told by my Sales Rep that this is how my car would get advanced releases of software. Untrue!

Plus, you didn't answer my question: "...have you paid for FSD? If not, then why not?" I "deeply so" want to know, but we both know you haven't paid for it and you're just here trolling those who did.

Yet, our comms are not all at cross purposes: I think your avatar is spot on in that YOU THINK everyone else is wrong. You should have heeded the myth of Narcissus to not gaze into the still pool too long...but, it's too late. Goodnight!

 

[Knightshade]

"...far from any legal or factual basis" - really?!

Yes, really.

Narcissistic much?

You seem to keep using words you don't understand the meaning of.

Once again nothing that has actually happened fits the word you used.

I pointed out your claims about the law are factually inaccurate. Nothing about my own personal perception of myself was involved- laws are laws no matter who is writing about them.

So, you see yourself as the judge, jury and executioner

No, I see myself as someone who understands what the words being used mean.

This doesn't even require attendance of law school- there's tons of pretty simply written resources online to understand the legal framework around ideas like what discrimination is, legally.

for Tesla denying FSD beta to the vast majority of its paid customers?

Again your claim does not make any factual sense.

Nothing in the terms of sale of the FSD product from Tesla ever promised pre-general-release software- not to you, and not to anyone else who bought it.

There's literally no legal, or even logical, basis for your claim you are in any way 'entitled' to it.

You are entitled to public general releases- this isn't one of those.

Well, ok - yup, I'm guilty of being an innocent dupe for paying $8K extra for what's tantamount to AP.

This, like all your remarks so far, is grossly incorrect on the facts.

FSD conveys half a dozen specific features, today, in excess of those offered by basic AP.

Tesla even lists them during the sales process.

Also, like nearly everyone else, I clicked on my Tesla's UI "Advanced" 'Software Update' button which, apparently, is akin to pressing an elevator's "Close Door" button. But, I was specifically told by my Sales Rep that this is how my car would get advanced releases of software. Untrue!

Advanced does not mean "Not yet even released to the general public"

Once again you seem unclear on the basic meaning of words.

Plus, you didn't answer my question: "...have you paid for FSD? If not, then why not?" I "deeply so" want to know, but we both know you haven't paid for it and you're just here trolling those who did.

A great way to detect a troll is the moment someone calls them out on their basic claims being untrue they call anyone doing it a troll.

Case in point above.

You're welcome to delve into my post history, which exceeds your by years, and thousands of posts, to see why this claim is even sillier than your previous ones- but we all know you won't.

Yet, our comms are not all at cross purposes: I think your avatar is spot on in that YOU THINK everyone else is wrong.

In this case it's not really a question of thinking, but knowing.

 

[not-Martin]

Why?

Given it's something that's never been done, nobody knows how long it'll take.

In fact Tesla specifically tells you that- during purchase- regarding future features. Nobody knows when they'll be able to be delivered.

That the guy in charge remains optimistic is hardly unusual. Hell, VW was "optimistic" they'd be the world leader in EVs by 2018.




Not a winnable one, no. Which is why nobody's wasted money filing such a suit.

Especially when, again, you're clearly told what you actually get with your purchase during the purchase.

Here is a quote from another thread which beautifully illustrates, from a legal perspective, the legal problems Tesla has:

it's always surprised me that a consumer fraud claim hasn't been brought - at least in Illinois. Here, consumer fraud requires a deception by the defendant, a reliance on that deception by the plaintiff, that deception causing damage, and that deception happening in the course of commerce. There isn't even mention of a contract - as a matter of fact, many of the deceptions are of the "I know the contract says this, but ..." with that statement made by an agent of the defendant being the very deception that causes the plaintiff to enter into the contract. A company can commit fraud by withholding facts that a sophisticated buyer would have relied on to behave differently. On the other hand, a firm can also commit fraud by producing falsehoods that the buyer relies on to commit to a purchase.

It isn't, in my mind anyhow, enough that Tesla never said we'd have FSD in whatever timeframe. Elon made statements, and Tesla posted videos and statements like "coming by the end of the year" that made it sound like FSD was right around the corner. And Elon's tweets and statements matter because he is very much a company agent. If the fact is "and we don't actually have a working version of this anywhere close to the form we're showing in a video," then it was a deception. Again, per the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, just omitting a material fact that would have changed the behavior of a buyer is fraud. So omitting the fact (assuming it is true - nothing but discovery could prove it) that Tesla has no working FSD prototype capable of advertised features constitutes fraud.

I imagine at least some people wouldn't have bought FSD had they know it wasn't just awaiting regulatory approval, but in fact, wasn't even existent anywhere. Some people would have been fine with it and paid anyhow. Other people relied on information that was clearly incomplete at best and feel defrauded. And again, it isn't that Tesla never said "You will have FSD by xx/xx/xxxx," but instead because Tesla never said "we don't have a working version anywhere and there is no proof we ever will." If that is a material fact for people and Tesla didn't disclose it, then per the Act in Illinois, that is fraud.

 

[BritneySpears]

FSD is coming like...

The second coming of Jesus.
Trump's return to the presidency this month.
Big Foot is real and just hasn't been found yet.
Sign at bar entrance "free beer tomorrow".

The timeline is laughable so it deserves punishment. I believe it will eventually be satisfying but not for a very long time.

 

[johnm]

September 2014
They will be a factor of 10 safer than a person [at the wheel] in a six-year time frame

Interesting that the first prediction is likely one of the most reasonable. It seems plausible (to me) that in around 200% of the estimated time, the prediction could be true.

 

[GeoffEV]

Yes, really.




You seem to keep using words you don't understand the meaning of.

Once again nothing that has actually happened fits the word you used.

I pointed out your claims about the law are factually inaccurate. Nothing about my own personal perception of myself was involved- laws are laws no matter who is writing about them.






No, I see myself as someone who understands what the words being used mean.

This doesn't even require attendance of law school- there's tons of pretty simply written resources online to understand the legal framework around ideas like what discrimination is, legally.





Again your claim does not make any factual sense.

Nothing in the terms of sale of the FSD product from Tesla ever promised pre-general-release software- not to you, and not to anyone else who bought it.

There's literally no legal, or even logical, basis for your claim you are in any way 'entitled' to it.

You are entitled to public general releases- this isn't one of those.






This, like all your remarks so far, is grossly incorrect on the facts.

FSD conveys half a dozen specific features, today, in excess of those offered by basic AP.

Tesla even lists them during the sales process.





Advanced does not mean "Not yet even released to the general public"

Once again you seem unclear on the basic meaning of words.





A great way to detect a troll is the moment someone calls them out on their basic claims being untrue they call anyone doing it a troll.

Case in point above.

You're welcome to delve into my post history, which exceeds your by years, and thousands of posts, to see why this claim is even sillier than your previous ones- but we all know you won't.






In this case it's not really a question of thinking, but knowing.

Thanks for so dramatically proving my point, but you should seek professional Jordan Peterson-type help ASAP. Good luck!

 

[linux-works]

But Tesla engineers, led by then-head of engineering Doug Field, developed the model behind his back. According to Higgins, Field was concerned that Musk interferes with vehicle production and design, right down to the smallest details, and Field wanted to avoid him intervening.

I've had recruiters ping me about tesla (both the car side and energy side).

I have to reply back to them that I'm sorry, but I cant work with someone like elon around.

I'm 100% serious. I always turn down tesla when the recruiters call. I'd like to help tesla, but I know for a given that that guy is toxic as hell and he's not one to work under.

I wish he would just take his money and retire and let reasonable people control the company. I truly think he's a liability more than an asset, at this point. true, he pushed things along when they were needed. at this point, he's not needed anymore; the company is well established and they can't even make cars fast enough. what they need now is a steady-state kind of ceo who can take the company to the next level. elon is not good at that.

companies have growth stages. its rare to have the same ceo do all stages. better ones know what they are good at and hand the controls over to the next guy when its time. elon wont do that. his ego wont let him.

tesla badly needs new blood.