TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Poll: Should Tesla make software updates compulsory?

Discussion in 'Model S' started by thegruf, Aug 22, 2016.

?

Poll: Should Tesla make software updates compulsory?

  1. Yes

  2. No

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. thegruf

    thegruf Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2015
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    UK
    Tesla continue to develop the car's software to enhance safety, performance and features including interface at a remarkable pace.

    This leads to cars in the field with a wide variety of software builds, and the problem is compounded when some users elect not to update (as is their option currently) when offered an upgrade when the percieve an update adversely alters behaviour that they like, even if they have no idea what other features have been updated and the reasons behind the updates.

    Tesla's cars are safe, of this there is no doubt. But what if an accident occurs that Tesla are able to state would not have occurred with the latest version of the software that the owner refused to accept?

    All software has bugs in it, this is a matter of fact rather than criticism. Many owners identify their purchase as being their property and it is their right to decide what to do with it. But it is not atypical in software for it not to be owned but licensed (potential open source Tesla licensing anomalies noted) with conditions stipulating that the vendor reserves the right to amend at will.

    So, without resorting to the obnoxious and underhand strategies of Microsft and Windows 10, should Tesla enforce updates?
     
  2. robby

    robby Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2014
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    What's going to happen eventually is that Tesla won't require it, but insurance companies will.
     
  3. Sir Guacamolaf

    Sir Guacamolaf The good kind of fat

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2016
    Messages:
    418
    Location:
    My Model S
    ^^without resorting to the obnoxious and underhand strategies of Microsoft and Windows 10

    .. that is key! I don't want to loose my car for 4 hours a week at the most inopportune times just because someone won't fix their bloatware.
     
  4. DrManhattan

    DrManhattan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2014
    Messages:
    247
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I don't really care what you do as long as you aren't complaining on the forums while you're on old software.:rolleyes:
     
    • Like x 5
    • Funny x 2
  5. Skotty

    Skotty 2014 Model S P85

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    No. Over the air updates are a great feature, but people should demand the right to own what they buy and not have it manipulated without their consent. All updates should be optional, unless they represent a fix for a significant safety defect. However, it is perfectly reasonable for support to be withheld if not running reasonably current software.

    If updates are to be forced without consent, then general consent should be required as an explicit step of the purchase process -- at time of purchase, there should be a separate and clear disclaimer of the updates policy that must be signed off on before the sale is allowed to continue.
     
  6. Drivin

    Drivin Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2016
    Messages:
    964
    Location:
    CA
    If that is what the buyer agreed to when they bought the car, then sure.
    Otherwise no.

    Unauthorized authoritarian actions by "well meaning" multi-billion dollar companies is not the way to go.
     
    • Like x 1
  7. rfmurphy81

    rfmurphy81 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2016
    Messages:
    252
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Perhaps if they provided a complete and comprehensible list of changes in each release, people would not be so apprehensive to upgrading? For a while, they kept listing the same Summon update in the release notes but lately it's just been "fixes". However, they would also need to display the release notes beforehand, as they are only shown after, as far as I've seen.
     
    • Like x 1
  8. calisnow

    calisnow Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,136
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I presume Tesla has its reasons for not enforcing updates - I am not sure we are privy to those reasons. Without knowing the reasons it's hard to make a judgment on what Tesla should or should not do.
     
  9. FequalsMA

    FequalsMA Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    not that i'm in support of it but aren't updates compulsory already?

    its well within possibility that SC can refuse service if owner declines update (i think someone has wrote on it already) especially on leases.

    Sucks because in Hong Kong the web browser, calendar app and previously autosteer were all removed via OTA,
    Protesting feature removal that way could sadly lead to other issues in getting cars serviced.
     
  10. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    Things get pretty grey in this realm, but I definitely agree that Tesla needs a EULA which is clear and well thought out and protects them from refusers. As of now, they've relied on consumer goodwill due to the mostly enthusiastic owner base and it's unreasonable to think that'll continue. The purchase agreement needs to spell out that you're buying hardware, and you get a license to use software which Tesla owns. They control that license and revoke and update it at will. Someone might argue that this will turn off consumers, but that argument probably holds little weight given the way consumers treat EULAs in all other fields.
     
  11. Garlan Garner

    Garlan Garner Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Are you kidding..... now I have to use the dictionary again....lets see.....

    C....o...m....p --- Oh yeah there it is.

    Answer = yes.
     
    • Funny x 1
  12. Bangor Bob

    Bangor Bob Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Bangor, ME
    Slippery slope that... If at some point they change the T&C's, and you no longer agree with the license terms, will they need to come collect the car and leave you a check?
     
  13. Garlan Garner

    Garlan Garner Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Good luck with that. Good luck with anyone that believes they can "collect" my car.
     
  14. ohmman

    ohmman Maximum Plaid Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Messages:
    4,825
    Location:
    North Bay, CA
    I don't know if this was in response to my post, but either way I'm unclear on your hypothetical. They wouldn't be free to chance the license on someone who had already agreed to one. They'd be free to chance the software at will, though. Why would they collect the car?

    If you're talking about existing owners, I think that's a completely different conversation from what Tesla needs to do moving forward. There will be legacy owners that are going to pose some challenges, and that's why I think they need to really consider adding license agreements to the purchase process.
     
  15. bob_p

    bob_p Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    From a service standpoint, it would be much better for Tesla if all cars were running the latest update. When an owner is having problems with the car, the phone support or service center will typically want to update the car to the latest software.

    However...

    Tesla's quality control continues to miss bugs in software releases (it's surprising that they still haven't fixed the resume-from-sleep bug that starts USB music playing overnight). Plus Tesla throttles distribution of the releases, with some owners often waiting over a month before seeing the latest updates.

    There are a number of improvements Tesla could make in their update release strategy, but we haven't seen any significant improvements since the first production cars were released.
    1. Owners should have the ability to pull the latest software updates to their cars, at a time of their convenience (on a road trip, I probably would NOT want to risk a new software update)
    2. Owners should have the ability to "rollback" to the last "stable" release, if they encounter an unacceptable bug. This could be the last update for the previous major release, which should be the most stable for that release. Today, that would mean the ability to rollback to the last update for Version 7.0. By restricting the rollback to a specific release, that would make it easier for Tesla to verify the rollback works with each new software update.
    3. Tesla should provide an "opt in" for owners to get early access to the next release. Increasing the number of owners testing new releases should help to catch more of the bugs that continue to show up in production releases. And, as long as there was an option to "rollback" to the latest production release, the risks for participating owners should be acceptable.
    4. And, to keep the cars on close to the same version (to help with Tesla support), Tesla could require all cars to be running at a version no earlier than the last update for the previous major version (today - Version 7.0).
    Tesla's strategy of introducing new changes quickly - and at any time (not waiting for "model years") has some significant advantages. But by frequently introducing new releases (even the minor bug fixes), they will always have difficulty in adequately testing each of those releases - especially as the number of car configurations continues to increase.

    The above changes should help Tesla improve quality, by getting more eyes on each release, while they are quickly fixing bugs - and also give owners more control over what's in their car.
     
  16. democappy

    democappy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    I don't have a particularly strong opinion. I voted no, but I plan to always download the latest updates as they come. I was pretty shocked to see yes is overwhelmingly winning. I wonder if the type of person to post on these forums is way more likely than the average owner to say yes.

    I am trying to think of any other company or other product where if asked the question of "should company X be able to force me to do Y?" that the result wouldn't be a landslide victory for the No. Maybe people are thinking of this in the same vein as should the government be able to force people to wear a seatbelt or wear a helmet. That is about the only situation I could see myself saying yes, but that example isn't about a private company and seems to be a big stretch from requiring software updates.
     
    • Like x 1
  17. grichard

    grichard Member De-Luxe

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    165
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    It's interesting to think through the question "...or else what?"

    Traditional recalls are voluntary in the sense that nobody will march you in to the dealer at gunpoint. But they're "compulsory" in the sense that the dealer won't work on the car any more unless they do the recall work at the same time.

    The Tesla software issue seems to me the same in theory, but very different in degree: Most of us want TSLA to be continuously involved with our cars, in the sense of keeping the network-connected features like nav and autopilot working. Continued connectivity is the stick that can make software updates practically required.

    So when owners say "never without my consent!" I suspect that TSLA's unspoken response is "okay, but we didn't promise eternal connectivity, either." Owners can always refuse updates by disabling the cell radio, and still keep a functional car, but at the cost of a lot of ancillary features.

    I wholeheartedly agree with Ohmman that this whole deal needs to be spelled out more explicitly at the time of purchase. Tesla needs to specify its obligations, and its owners' obligations, related to connectivity and updates.
     
  18. habanero69

    habanero69 I Dont Need Cialis. I Drive an EV.

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2016
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    FLorida
    What about those that may implicate a safety issue? If you could pick and choose or Tesla would separate only those deemed safety related and would more or less be required by insurance or liability concerns, then maybe.... :confused:
     
  19. alexvirital

    alexvirital Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    alexandria, va
    From a sysadmin's perspective, the weakest point in security is an unpatched system. At that point, especially given how networked these cars are, a security vulnerability in your car affects me. A failure in your autopilot system, especially as we approach L2 and L3 AP, affects me.
     
  20. Garlan Garner

    Garlan Garner Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2016
    Messages:
    3,223
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    How many companies actually have software or something that they "can" update? Outside of Microsoft and some computer software....I can't think of many. Oh yeah.....AT&T provides updates to their smart phone OS from time to time. But car companies?

    I believe that if a person refuses to update their software than it should void either their warranty or service calls.
     

Share This Page