MASTER THREAD: FSD Subscription Available 16 Jul 2021

[stopcrazypp]

So, if I read this right:
Buy a physical car, which is sold as having the HW needed for FSD, in writing. In that case, Tesla is NOT obligated to make that statement true for unmentioned reasons, even though it means the car has a reduced feature set compared to cars where it is true.

Buy a software package, which does not mention hardware in any way as part of the purchase process, and Tesla is obligated to upgrade you to HW3 and anything else in the future.

Yep, sounds pretty simple. And completely nuts.

They actually do mention the hardware now, in the order page under the FSD option no less (not just part of blog, which may or may not apply to your specific order and option configuration).
Shows this with a picture of HW3:

Full Self-Driving Computer​

Tesla-designed silicon optimized for computer vision enables detailed, onscreen environment visualization and eventual Full Self-Driving Capability through over-the-air software updates.

This is the official name for HW3, as unveiled during Autonomy Day in 2019. Prior to that, this hardware naming didn't exist (previous iterations were called HW2 or HW2.5 or later Autopilot Computer 2.0 and 2.5).

Tesla unveils its new Full Self-Driving computer in detail: 'objectively the best chip in the world'

At the ‘Tesla Autonomy Day’ today, Tesla unveiled all the details about its new Full Self-Driving computer, which CEO Elon...

electrek.co

 

[BM3B]

I wish there was more useful information in this thread.

 

[gearchruncher]

They actually do mention the hardware now, in the order page under the FSD option no less (not just part of blog, which may or may not apply to your specific order and option configuration).

This is the official name for HW3, as unveiled during Autonomy Day in 2019. Prior to that, this hardware naming didn't exist (previous iterations were called HW2 or HW2.5 or later Autopilot Computer 2.0 and 2.5).

"Full self driving computer" is Tesla's current term for HW3. Remember, HW2 was also a full self driving computer. So notice, it does NOT explicitly say that future HW upgrades are included. Just that the computer which is included in all cars as part of the base purchase is also included???

But all of this is moot. That's for a new car purchase, and what we're discussing is cars sold 2016-2019. Here's what purchasing FSD looks like for a current HW2.5 car:

 

[GlockWorkOrnge]

I was explicitly promised that the HW in my car is CAPABLE of FSD. It's not. Because of this, I cannot subscribe to FSD, nor can I see free FSD visualizations without paying an additional amount that people with newer hardware do not need to pay. They broke an explicit promise that my car would be capable of this.

Why is one explicit promise by Tesla something you expect them to hold themselves to, while others are no big deal if they break them? Did you note the only explicit promise Tesla made was an upgrade to 2.5? So an upgrade to 3.0 is on Tesla's goodwill, not because they promised it.

Do you really want to go down the path of things "Tesla" explicitly said would happen, but never did? Because unnamed spokesperson in 2017 counts as an explicit promise, but CEO communications do not?.... Remember, there's an Elon tweet/investor call for everything.


Ahh, see, you expect it... But you also know Tesla hasn't promised it, and it isn't in any contract, despite you saying that buying FSD for sure gets you upgrades forever. I expected my car to have the HW needed for FSD because I was promised it, and look how it turned out. HW4 is going to be a complete mess, and all the people with HW3 right now going "why would you ever expect free HW upgrades!?" are going to have a very different tune when it applies to them.

How does Tesla define Full Self Driving? I mean, is there an actual official statement from Tesla about what it means? I'm not asking for an Elon tweet, I want to know the company's specific definition.

 

[stopcrazypp]

How does Tesla define Full Self Driving? I mean, is there an actual official statement from Tesla about what it means? I'm not asking for an Elon tweet, I want to know the company's specific definition.

The broadest meaning was in 2016, with a set of features that implied L4 right on the order page:

They've since changed that multiple times, with the current feature set (all the EAP features + Traffic Lights Control) and City Streets (end-to-end L2) promised as coming, but no other promises beyond this. You can check out the current order page yourself.

 

[Daniel in SD]

City Streets (end-to-end L2) promised as coming

The latest version of FSD is "Autosteer on city streets" which doesn't sound like end-to-end to me. The previous "automatic driving on city streets" version was end-to-end L2. I would argue that it's not really automatic driving if it requires a driver but I suppose the fine print does clarify that it requires supervision.

 

[gearchruncher]

I would argue that it's not really automatic driving if it requires a driver but I suppose the fine print does clarify that it requires supervision.

The original 2016-2019 language specifically said: "no action required by person in drivers seat" (note, not a driver) and that the car would find a parking spot and be summoned back with nobody in it. That's full L4. There was no fine print that supervision was required beyond the validation and regulatory boogeyman phase.

 

[Daniel in SD]

The original 2016-2019 language specifically said: "no action required by person in drivers seat" (note, not a driver) and that the car would find a parking spot and be summoned back with nobody in it. That's full L4. There was no fine print that supervision was required beyond the validation and regulatory boogeyman phase.

I was talking about FSD V2 and V3. I agree that V1 (10/2016-2/2019) was at least L4.

 

[CapeOne]

The subscription has nothing to do with any of the above as it did not even exist when any promise was given nor when these cars were sold

The statement was "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability…”

It was not “All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability if you buy full self-driving capability..."

The hardware was included with the car whether you purchased FSD or not yet Tesla is now charging FSD subscribers for hardware needed for FSD . Why should someone subscribing to FSD have to pay (again) for hardware that Tesla clearly stated the car already had?

 

[Knightshade]

The statement was "All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability…”

It was not “All Tesla vehicles produced in our factory, including Model 3, have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability if you buy full self-driving capability..."

Again you are misunderstanding the legal principle at work.

You have to be able to show some sort of loss or damages.

"I can't use a feature I don't even own" is not the basis for a lawsuit. You can't show any actual harm you have suffered at that point.

And if you DO own it, you CAN use it- because they insure the hardware gets any needed upgrades for free.

The hardware was included with the car whether you purchased FSD or not yet Tesla is now charging FSD subscribers for hardware needed for FSD .

No.

Tesla is charging if you have an older car and want to be eligible for the subscription service... a service they never said you'd qualify for when you bought the car, since the service did not exist.

If you want FSD WITHOUT paying for a HW upgrade you can still BUY FSD and NOT be charged for hardware. Just like always.

I kinda feel like this exact basic idea has been explained roughly 874,000 times already though.

It hasn't changed.

 

[gearchruncher]

You have to be able to show some sort of loss or damages.

"I can't use a feature I don't even own" is not the basis for a lawsuit. You can't show any actual harm you have suffered at that point.

Multiple forms of damages exist from Tesla's incorrect statement that the car has the HW needed, and the subsequent decision to charge for HW upgrades to get a FSD sub:

1) Resale value. Anyone that wants to sub to FSD instead of paying outright will pay less for a HW2/2.5 car, now knowing that they have to pay to upgrade.

2) FSD visualizations are not available. It doesn't matter the FSD vis wasn't promised. It would work if Tesla's statement was accurate and the HW was there. This is proven by the fact all HW3 cars get it. You would be in a different situation if you had FSD capable HW. You have to pay $1000 to get something that someone with a "Full Self Driving computer" (which Tesla told you was included) does not.

3) Tesla will not sell you an MCU2 upgrade without a HW3 upgrade at additional cost.

4) If you have HW2, you have additional missing features that came along with the FSD hardware. Sentry & Dashcam for instance.

5) (Future) Tesla swears Tesla Vision is the future and is going to be safer than radar cars. Vision is likely to only work on HW3. Thus, you need to pay $1000 to take advantage of a safety improvement that would have been included if your car had FSD hardware (Feel free to argue that Tesla Vision isn't and will never be safer )

This is the problem with telling customers the HW is there when it's not, and then giving people that actually have the HW free additional features. You actually build damages from that mis-statement that go beyond your initial scope, because anything that is not true due to your mis-statement becomes pertinent. It wouldn't be an issue if they hadn't released those HW3 only features at all, but once they do, people with HW2 are missing out. Tesla makes it even worse on themselves because they call HW3 the "Full Self Driving Computer" - you can literally say that these are all the things you are missing because Tesla didn't give you the FSD computer when they said they would, and are the things you get when you spend $1000 on a HW upgrade.

 

[Knightshade]

Multiple forms of damages exist from Tesla's incorrect statement that the car has the HW needed, and the subsequent decision to charge for HW upgrades to get a FSD sub:

1) Resale value. Anyone that wants to sub to FSD instead of paying outright will pay less for a HW2/2.5 car, now knowing that they have to pay to upgrade.

You would need to prove that to a court.

I highly, highly, highly, doubt you could.

Especially given current used car pricing.

2) FSD visualizations are not available.

Nor were you ever promised them, so that's not actionable at all

The visualizations are a result of having the computer, NOT having FSD.

Those with HW3 and no FSD at all also have em.

In fact, now that there's a way to get the computer upgrade by itself- you have MORE options than you did before--- Before this if you wanted the visualizations but did NOT want FSD- you were out of luck. Now you can pay 1k to get them anyway, still without FSD!

3) Tesla will not sell you an MCU2 upgrade without a HW3 upgrade at additional cost.

Again nobody ever promised you an MCU upgrade at all so no, also not actionable.

4) If you have HW2, you have additional missing features that came along with the FSD hardware. Sentry & Dashcam for instance.

So first- your basic claim is wrong. HW2 gets sentry mode... just not dashcam. (one is not required for the other)

Second- you were promised neither thing when you bought a HW2 car. They didn't even EXIST when HW2 cars were sold new.

So....not actionable.

Notice a pattern yet?

5) (Future) Tesla swears Tesla Vision is the future and is going to be safer than radar cars.

You can't sue over theoretical future damages you have no evidence of having suffered today.

So again- huge nothingburger legally.



So... 0 for 5 really.

 

[CapeOne]

You have to be able to show some sort of loss or damages.


If you want FSD WITHOUT paying for a HW upgrade you can still BUY FSD and NOT be charged for hardware. Just like always.

One example is having to pay $1k for "hardware needed for FSD" to subscribe to FSD when you had already paid for "hardware needed for FSD" as part of the car's original purchase price. It can also potentially lower the car's resale value since it no longer has "hardware needed for FSD" (again, despite Tesla's original claim) if a future buyer wants to subscribe to FSD.

Tesla didn't say the car "came with hardware for FSD only if you purchased FSD" yet you seem to want to keep putting qualifications on the statement. It doesn't matter if the subscription option existed or not as we are still talking about FSD. FSD is FSD whether you purchased it as an upgrade from AP, an upgrade from EAP, in full upfront on a purchase, full upfront on a lease, your grandmother bought it for you, or you got it through a subscription.

But as long as you want to continue to play games and put non-existent qualifications on Tesla's statement then there's little reason to keep going around in circles on this subject.

 

[linux-works]

perhaps the lesson from all of this is: dont preinstall hw and make promises to users beyond what it currently does, as a full end-user sw release.

if you want 'fsd' then you schedule an appt, you get whatever LATEST hw does that and you have it.

else, your car stays with older hw.

the whole mess tesla got themselves into was trying to tantallize users by lying to them that all they'd ever need is sw updates and the hw is there ready to be unlocked. its a lie and anyone should have known that, at tesla. users, no; but tesla guys, yes.

so one thing to watch is: will the other newcomer vendors also make this mistake or will they learn from it?

to me, it was clearly a mistake and one that should not be repeated. sell the base car as a base car and dont make any promises. just like base computers are base computers and if you want gamer cards for video, you buy that feature.

I have not seen a whole computer come with all the things you'd ever want, and then unlock them one by one via sw. enterprise sw works like that but end user hw usually does not.

 

[Knightshade]

One example is having to pay $1k for "hardware needed for FSD" to subscribe to FSD

But that's not quite what is happening.

The subscription (which did not exist when any promises or sales you're discussing happened) requires already having the right HW. The product is priced to ONLY provide a subscription, for a specific period, to the subscription version of the software that has no residual value either.

The PURCHASE is much more expensive, has residual value as it stays with the car (barring re-ownership by Tesla), and has any needed HW upgrade included- because the PURCHASE (which was the only thing that "was" FSD when you were promised you wouldn't need to buy any more HW) still doesn't require you to buy any more hardware

It can also potentially lower the car's resale value since it no longer has "hardware needed for FSD"

And if you could actually prove that, you'd have a case. (Specifically you could sue for the amount by which it hurts resale.

As I say- good luck actually proving that's true though- since the next owner can ALSO just buy FSD and get the HW for free... plus used car prices are crazy high right now (and even before that Tesla used car prices were especially high compared to other cars)

Tesla didn't say the car "came with hardware for FSD only if you purchased FSD" yet you seem to want to keep putting qualifications on the statement.

At the time they said it about the 2.x cars purchasing was the only method to obtain FSD

So they knew even if they ended up "needing" more HW to deliver FSD, the pricing of the product was such it would cover upgrading it at Teslas expense.

(it's not like they decided they needed HW3 the day they started putting it in cars- it was under development far earlier... and HW2.5 was going into cars (again they didn't invent it that day) in mid-2017.)

It doesn't matter if the subscription option existed or not

It literally does, legally.

 

[Knightshade]

I have not seen a whole computer come with all the things you'd ever want, and then unlock them one by one via sw. enterprise sw works like that but end user hw usually does not.

Tons of end user SOFTWARE already works like that. In-app purchases, unlocks, DLC, etc...

So does plenty of OTHER Tesla hardware.... they've offered paid unlocks for speed, for battery capacity, even for heated seats- all things the physical hardware for was already there because it was cheaper/simpler to not have multiple different parts--- something that complicates not just manufacturing, but supply chain, inventory, and more.

 

[Az_Rael]

the whole mess tesla got themselves into was trying to tantallize users by lying to them that all they'd ever need is sw updates and the hw is there ready to be unlocked. its a lie and anyone should have known that, at tesla. users, no; but tesla guys, yes.

so one thing to watch is: will the other newcomer vendors also make this mistake or will they learn from it?

I remember when Tesla was promising that AP1 cars would be able to eventually drive coast to coast. They have a long history of over promising in their communications, I am kind of surprised no one has gotten them on false advertising yet. So far it hasn’t affected their sales, so why would they change, it is a winning strategy for them right now. We can hope for more competition to eventually solve the issue I imagine.

I think other manufacturers have learned from Tesla but it isn’t the lesson I would have liked. I know the EV mustang was released with promises about how the future hands free driving system would work. I haven’t followed closely enough to see if Ford is delivering on those promises, but apparently selling cars with future nebulous features is now a thing.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I remember when Tesla was promising that AP1 cars would be able to eventually drive coast to coast. They have a long history of over promising in their communications, I am kind of surprised no one has gotten them on false advertising yet. So far it hasn’t affected their sales, so why would they change, it is a winning strategy for them right now. We can hope for more competition to eventually solve the issue I imagine.

I think other manufacturers have learned from Tesla but it isn’t the lesson I would have liked. I know the EV mustang was released with promises about how the future hands free driving system would work. I haven’t followed closely enough to see if Ford is delivering on those promises, but apparently selling cars with future nebulous features is now a thing.

Ford's promised update haven't come yet. Heck, they haven't even gotten their OTA update system working properly yet (they are still having people bring the cars into dealers to do updates, and supposedly a lot of dealers don't know how to do it without bricking the car). They are just starting to get basic features like phone as a key working properly (it had been broken since launch), so it looks like they have a long road ahead working out the software kinks. All this software stuff is easier said than done.

 

[Knightshade]

I remember when Tesla was promising that AP1 cars would be able to eventually drive coast to coast.

Do you?

Because my recollection of Musk making that promise was he did so on the day they announced AP2- October 19th, 2016.

If he promised that before then, on AP1, I'd love to see a source on it.

(and even then- it wasn't a "promise" so much as he said it was an aspirational goal he felt good about)

They have a long history of over promising in their communications, I am kind of surprised no one has gotten them on false advertising yet.

The fact Tesla does not advertise might be relevant here.

Also the fact that "Random speculative forward-looking stuff Elon says generally" isn't really the same as "The company officially promised someone X in exchange for Y" that you'd need for legal action.

 

[Dan D.]

The latest version of FSD is "Autosteer on city streets" which doesn't sound like end-to-end to me. The previous "automatic driving on city streets" version was end-to-end L2. I would argue that it's not really automatic driving if it requires a driver but I suppose the fine print does clarify that it requires supervision.

I highly expect that if they only deliver "Autosteer on City Streets" they would claim that satisfies the expectations. This meaning some watered down version of what we all think FSD and even FSD Beta are expected to do. That they call it Autosteer on City Streets shows their line of thinking.

We're all hoping they release FSD Beta to FSD and give all the good stuff like door-to-door, self parking, sign recognition, hand gesture recognition, etc. If all they release in the end is a car that can steer and stop/start in the city with mandatory supervision and some control needed to confirm green light or blind turns, people are going to get pissed. But then, some people are already pissed about lots of things and it doesn't seem to matter much to Tesla. I hope they don't pull another one over on everyone who's waiting for FSD, but the writing is on the website.