Owners Sue Tesla over Enhanced AP

[Tangible]

No, this is simply the reality of software development. It takes time. It takes time to design, it takes time to write, and it takes time to test. Then you have to do N iteration loops of the above to perfect it.

Doug, all that is true. What's causing all the frustration, at least for me, is the claim that AP2 software was awaiting only "final validation" and was expected to roll out in a few weeks, when clearly they were actually at beginning of a six month development effort because of the breakup with MobileEye. In December when those claims were being made they were already making cars without the Mobileye chip, so they knew they wouldn't have the smooth segue to their own system that they had once hoped for.

When Elon Musk predicts achievements to be a year or two away I take his entrepreneurial optimism into account and assume it will really be "someday", as all the unpredictable factors you list come into play. This situation was different,

 

[AnxietyRanger]

No, this is simply the reality of software development. It takes time. It takes time to design, it takes time to write, and it takes time to test. Then you have to do N iteration loops of the above to perfect it.

Not necessarily relevant, though.

There are delays caused by software development issues and the difficult of planning/scheduling all that, and then there are "delays" due to misleading expectations caused by simply outrageous announcements that had nothing to do with software development planning/scheduling/implementation difficulties.

I guess a lot of us are arguing Tesla and the case of EAP is the latter, not the former.

Let's look at the known facts in two segments:

- The split from MobilEey was announced in June 2016
- AP2 and EAP were announced in October 2016, so a full quarter+ after MobilEye was announced to be gone
- AP2 hardware buidling started either in late September or early October depending on the source

This first set of facts clearly suggests Tesla knew MobilEye would not be a part of the AP2 hardware when EAP was announced and hardware was being built in October. So any suggestion MobilEye not being on board affected the EAP announcement is bollocks. Tesla had not announced EAP until October 2016, so they could have changed the announcement were it affected.

So, on to the second segment of facfts:

- In October 2016 Elon Musk, at an event, reportedly describes EAP as being beyond AP1 in December 2016.
- In October 2016, Tesla says the following standard features "will become available in December 2016": Automatic Emergency Braking, Front Collision Warning, Side Collision Warning, Auto High Beams...
- In October 2016, Tesla places this text for the rest of the year to the Design Studio where you select to buy EAP: "Enhanced Autopilot... four cameras... will match speed to traffic conditions, keep within a lane, automatically change lanes without requiring driver input, transition from one freeway to another, exit the freeway when your destination is near... is expected to complete validation and be rolled out to your vehicle... in December 2016"
- AP2 has not yet even reached AP1 parity in late May 2017, let alone is beyond AP1, or using four cameras for anything. All of the standard safety and automation features of AP1 cars have not yet been rolled out either in late May 2017.

What this second set of facts IMO comes down to is this: did Tesla know or should Tesla reasonably have known, in October 2016 (and later, since they did not change the texts on the website), saying those will or are expected to be available in December 2016 is misleading marketing. Is it plausible Tesla just had another six+ months of delays after December 2016, unforeseen to a reasonable expert at Tesla and everything instead looking like all this would actually be finished in December 2016...?

That is the question I believe the lawsuit will come down to. What did Tesla know in October 2016 (and in subsequent months as the texts on Design Studio/Tesla.com remained unchanged) and what they reasonably should have known and communicated about the status of EAP and the standard safety features. I believe there is a fairly high chance that Tesla did not set the December 2016 expectation based on software development estimations, but for unrelated business reasons, and that is the beef...

This case would look very different if Tesla would simply have stated, in October 2016, that EAP and the standard safety features will become available over the next 6-12 months.

 

[verygreen]

or using four cameras for anything

Correction, as of sometime mid-May on 17.7.4+ all 7 B&W cameras are used for random snapshots. This is a technicality, but we can no longer claim the cameras are not used at all (as they were before).

I do agree with the rest of it.

 

[whitex]

So to me, Tesla didn't break any promises. All they said was, certain features will eventually be available. As far as the December 2016 date, "expected" doesn't mean WILL. Now, of course, the moment a company mentions a feature and a delivery date, we tend to be upset when that doesn't happen. Am I a little irritated because it seems like things are late, sure. Am I LAWSUIT irritated, no.
View attachment 223705

Hmm, let's see how it works from the other side. The moment the customer mentions they will pay for their Tesla on a delivery date (by clicking "confirm order"), does Tesla get a little irritated if that doesn't happen? Do they keep the deposit? Or do you think they'll just deliver the car anyways and say "just pay when you can"? What you are missing is the fact that they are charging a lot of money for something, then not deliver it on time. Why are you surprised people are upset? What Tesla is doing is running something akin to kickstarter campain, and they should be clear about it rather than selling it as a ready made product. Honestly, anyone who paid for FSD should have just invested in TSLA stock instead - if Tesla does make it work as they say it will, even if it doesn't happen on AP2 hardware, that stock will likely pay for a brand new Tesla with whatever is the latest version of Autopilot at the time. And if they fail, maybe the stock will provide at least partial refund.

 

[Tangible]

This case would look very different if Tesla would simply have stated, in October 2016, that EAP and the standard safety features will become available over the next 6-12 months.

I got a phone call in November from my salesman informing me that my on-order MS90D would be upgraded to HW2, would be delivered in late December, and would be probably be missing AP for no more than a week or two. If he had said instead that it would have some of the announced features by June I would have cancelled the order and waited to see what would happen.

So that's one case where the truth would have lost a sale. Tesla was highly motivated to lie about their "expectation" that complex software whose development was just beginning would magically be in production in a few weeks. Whether they did lie is what the case is about, and the process of legal discovery will be beneficial whatever the outcome.