I'm on the fence regarding this development. Not as to who is correct/has the inside scoop/etc., although that in itself is worth an aside: many statements by esp. Service Center employees over the past three or so years have turned out to be variably either not true, 180º not true, or, at best, still not the case. And not statements from junior SC employees, either.
What concerns me is the seeming pricing iniquity* I am reading into this hardware/software development, if it is true. As follows:
It used to be the case in the United States, under federal statute - from my grad or undergrad economics classes - that extracting economic rent by creating a price discrimination situation such that different persons paid a different price for the same product, was illegal. Cannot remember if it was civil or criminal penalties that applied.
Now, if Tesla Customers A and B receive the same hardware product - a 72A charger - but A doesn't need beyond the 48A default and so opts out of paying the $1,000 enabling charge; B sees utility in being able to charge at 72A and so she pays the additional amount, then, in my eyes, Tesla Motors is performing precisely this price discrimination. Worse, TM is acting out of a knowledge imbalance: TM knows that both customers possess the same item but, presumably, the customer does not.
So: as a shareholder, I am happy to learn that TM has the ability to achieve a higher gross margin. Yay!
But, as a long-distance traveler through esp SpC-impoverished Canada where Sun Country's 70A chargers are the best one can hope for....I'm a Customer B. Boo!
My two cents. Get three more and you can buy a nickel.
*iniquity AND inequity. Again, if true, then to my eyes it is both.