Make FSD Transferable - Sign the Petition!

SIGN HERE: Sign the Petition

You paid thousands for Full Self-Driving that has yet to become reality. Having to pay for it a 2nd time at a much higher amount stops me and so many others from upgrading their Tesla.

Us Tesla owners love to have the new versions and are willing to pay for regular upgrades, but with a $15,000 penalty, it doesn't make sense.

Elon Musk can easily make it transferable to a new vehicle which I am sure would significantly drive sales.

I and a large number of my friends would buy a new one tomorrow if FSD was transferable!

Win-Win!

 

[EV1LBONG]

I signed the petition... how many signatures does it need before Elon takes notice and makes it happen!

 

[JohnB007]

Yup this one I agree.

Or at least give me 50% discount towards the next FSD purchase.

 

[Fistobar]

I signed too. Even Apple lets you transfer your software to a new computer. I’d have thought it contributed to brand loyalty. Tesla might need that as competition increases.

 

[EVRider-FL]

If you sell your car privately rather than trade it in, you’re not expecting FSD to go with the car and also get an FSD discount on the new car, correct? If FSD doesn’t go with the car, you can’t sell it for as much, so an FSD discount on the new car isn’t worth as much as you might think.

 

[qdeathstar]

Signed, though I feel like Musk can prolly still afford to buy his own toilet paper, even after setting 45bil on fire….

 

[BBTX]

I get it being non-transferable once it's fully complete, but I really do think they should offer transfers for those that bought it during the unforeseen (by Elon) years of developmental delays that are ongoing. It doesn't have to be automatic. Leave the default as it is (FSDb is attached to a particular car), but offer the transfer as an option when directly trading in a Tesla for a new one, through Tesla itself, at least. I'd love to see the option to do it in other ways too (basically remove the FSD license from the car in exchange for some "credit" system that can be applied to a future purchase within X months, allowing you to use this with private sales or CarMax), but that sounds more complicated and unlikely.

 

[BigTree]

If you sell your car privately rather than trade it in, you’re not expecting FSD to go with the car and also get an FSD discount on the new car, correct? If FSD doesn’t go with the car, you can’t sell it for as much, so an FSD discount on the new car isn’t worth as much as you might think.

Yeah for sure. The software goes with me and leaves the car w/o FSD.

 

[Mullermn]

Tesla don’t want you to transfer FSD because the people that bought it under the original product description represent a massive liability in the event that FSD never works as well as originally projected.

With things as they are that list of customers and associated liability will eventually disappear.

 

[KArnold]

With things as they are that list of customers and associated liability will eventually disappear.

Along with a load of legal cases. Are you suggesting that either:

1. They stop selling FSD or offering subscription admitting it's a failure as offered? Seems that would create some court challenges above and beyond what we have today with increased liability. Or

2. They continue selling/subscribing FSD, knowing it will never reach past SAE L2 but keep stringing along the existing user base with vague statements, like we have today? That might limit short-term liability but most might say it's fraudulent.

Or did I miss your point?

 

[Mullermn]

Along with a load of legal cases. Are you suggesting that either:

1. They stop selling FSD or offering subscription admitting it's a failure as offered? Seems that would create some court challenges above and beyond what we have today with increased liability. Or

2. They continue selling/subscribing FSD, knowing it will never reach past SAE L2 but keep stringing along the existing user base with vague statements, like we have today? That might limit short-term liability but most might say it's fraudulent.

Or did I miss your point?

I didn’t really have a point to make, just explaining the reason why I think they don’t already do this.

There must be a reason because the opposite would be far smarter from a money making perspective - let’s say I want to replace my car. Do I buy a competing brand or do I buy another Tesla, knowing that I can carry forward thousands of [currency] of software features?

 

[johnmodely]

Tesla don’t want you to transfer FSD because the people that bought it under the original product description represent a massive liability in the event that FSD never works as well as originally projected.

With things as they are that list of customers and associated liability will eventually disappear.

Liability will be there regardless of whether you have the car or not, even if there is one person left and successfully files a class action that wins, you will still be paid if you had bought it in the past.

Which makes the fact that they refused to transfer it while its not complete even bigger blunder. It's as if they want to create 100s of thousands of angry Tesla customers, there is almost zero downside to enabling transfers for customers that never got what they were promised.

 

[st_o_p]

Couldn't care less if it's transferable. If I buy another Tesla I'm most certainly NOT getting FSD on it. Found it to be completely useless outside of highways.

 

[MindBlend]

One issue I see is for the rare case of the individuals they gave free hardware upgrades to. Do they give you a free hardware upgrade, and let you transfer it, and get hardware upgrades in the new car as well?
Though with them not offering an upgrade from HW3 to HW4, this is less of a valid argument.

 

[JHCCAZ]

Tesla don’t want you to transfer FSD because the people that bought it under the original product description represent a massive liability in the event that FSD never works as well as originally projected.

With things as they are that list of customers and associated liability will eventually disappear.

This is a good point if it's handled as a "transfer" under the now obsolete language of those original purchase agreements (here accepting for argument's sake that said language is indeed the liability that people claim it is).

But, why does it have to be handled as a transfer? It could be structured simply as an incentive offer to trade in the old Tesla and get significant or even full credit towards the FSD Capability option on a new Tesla.

By doing that, they give owners what many have been asking for, they removed the perverse disincentive for buying a new Tesla, and they successfully retire the vehicle that (t's argued) has the liability risk associated with the undelivered feature. Also in this incentive structure, they don't have to concede that there is actually any implied liability - it simply becomes a non-issue. There can be a bit of fine print in the offer acceptance, where the owner of the trade-in vehicle effectively abandons any such claim, but without Tesla implying that there would have been any under any circumstance.

It seems to me that structuring it this way is a win for everyone. I can't say that there wouldn't be a few diehard OG owners who just want to get into court with Tesla, and would turn down even a good incentive just to hang on to their perceived legal trump card. But I think that would become a very small number, and their position is already dubious even before this proposed solution.

 

[txguy]

I signed the petition... how many signatures does it need before Elon takes notice and makes it happen!

He doesn't care and he will not do that.

 

[Dewg]

This is a good point if it's handled as a "transfer" under the now obsolete language of those original purchase agreements (here accepting for argument's sake that said language is indeed the liability that people claim it is).

But, why does it have to be handled as a transfer? It could be structured simply as an incentive offer to trade in the old Tesla and get significant or even full credit towards the FSD Capability option on a new Tesla.

By doing that, they give owners what many have been asking for, they removed the perverse disincentive for buying a new Tesla, and they successfully retire the vehicle that (t's argued) has the liability risk associated with the undelivered feature. Also in this incentive structure, they don't have to concede that there is actually any implied liability - it simply becomes a non-issue. There can be a bit of fine print in the offer acceptance, where the owner of the trade-in vehicle effectively abandons any such claim, but without Tesla implying that there would have been any under any circumstance.

It seems to me that structuring it this way is a win for everyone. I can't say that there wouldn't be a few diehard OG owners who just want to get into court with Tesla, and would turn down even a good incentive just to hang on to their perceived legal trump card. But I think that would become a very small number, and their position is already dubious even before this proposed solution.

This may also have accounting advantages over the "transfer" option.

 

[ICE5891]

For me this is a no brainer. There is absolutely no chance that I buy FSD because I don't know how or what will happen with HW3 cars. But I could consider it if I knew that there would be a change of working on my HW3 and if not I a new purchase in couple of years.

They are loosing money from many people in situation similar as mine. Loosing demand of people that are holding their old cars that have FSD and giving away a really strong opportunity for costumers retention.

 

[Stijn_NL]

For me this is a no brainer. There is absolutely no chance that I buy FSD because I don't know how or what will happen with HW3 cars. But I could consider it if I knew that there would be a change of working on my HW3 and if not I a new purchase in couple of years.

They are loosing money from many people in situation similar as mine. Loosing demand of people that are holding their old cars that have FSD and giving away a really strong opportunity for costumers retention.

It's already known what will happen to HW3 cars, right? EM said that HW3 cars will not receive HW4 updates, it will just have a lower grade of FSD. He used the example of HW3 being 200% to 300% safer than a human, whereas HW4 will be 500% to 600% safer. He also said the cost and complexity of performing a retrofit would be “quite significant” and would not be economically feasible.

This might be one of the reasons the design of the cars has not significantly changed. But now, if they are confident HW3 can do FSD (200-300% safety), all cars with a hardware level that cannot achieve FSD can be brought up to HW3. At least the "form factor" / physical mounting points and stuff are the same.

And if this is the case, than now they can start modifying / updating / refreshing the car further because they don't need to worry about this backwards compatibility anymore.

All speculation of course, except for the 1st paragraph.

 

[ICE5891]

It's already known what will happen to HW3 cars, right? EM said that HW3 cars will not receive HW4 updates, it will just have a lower grade of FSD. He used the example of HW3 being 200% to 300% safer than a human, whereas HW4 will be 500% to 600% safer. He also said the cost and complexity of performing a retrofit would be “quite significant” and would not be economically feasible.

Yes but I don't mean retrofit. Lets say HW 4 have different set of cameras, cameras looking on on different angles then before, maybe high definition radar, maybe other differences... wont they focus all development efforts of FSD for HW4?
We cannot be sure that FSD developed on the grounds of HW4 will be immediately available for HW3. There is a change that they will keep promising that HW3 is enough but in reality will get updates much later. We all know how their timeline development progress. It is march 2023 and we don't have the replacement tesla vision park assist that was supposed to be unavailable for "short period".