Poll: Should Tesla make software updates compulsory?

[mikeash]

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Tesla could make routine updates optional but make safety-critical updates mandatory. There's some precedent to this. My understanding (it was before my time) is that when that fellow punctured his battery with a trailer hitch lying on the road and started a fire, Tesla quickly distributed a mandatory update locking out the lowest setting for the air suspension until they could retrofit the underbody shields. I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen again in the event of some serious Autopilot bug that causes it to always veer towards kittens or something.

 

[democappy]

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.

I am not seeing the connection to very few things being able to update and therefore making you forced to update. It isn't like a Tesla is going to turn into an unsafe death trap because you didn't update to the latest software. We aren't even talking about recall items here.

Maybe we just have very different beliefs on how little/much the software patches impact the car. Or possibly just different opinions on what you "own" when you buy a car. I view it as I paid for additional support through patches. I don't view it as I paid for a car that Tesla still owns the rights to modify as they see fit.

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

Interesting take and I imagine some people would interpret the question that way, although I think the OP meant that updates would be automatic and would not involve any choice by the owner (they can't choose to not install it and deal with consequences).

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.

That's how Tesla gets away with no EULA at the moment. All the non-networked features (stuff that works with cell radio/wifi off) will continue working as it did, but without the latest update, there is no guarantee that networked features will keep working. The other thread has a back and forth about legal requirements pertaining to that, but my opinion is an EULA is not required in this situation. It may make sense for Tesla to have one though, as it gives them more flexibility.

 

[Garlan Garner]

I am not seeing the connection to very few things being able to update and therefore making you forced to update. It isn't like a Tesla is going to turn into an unsafe death trap because you didn't update to the latest software. We aren't even talking about recall items here.

Maybe we just have very different beliefs on how little/much the software patches impact the car. Or possibly just different opinions on what you "own" when you buy a car. I view it as I paid for additional support through patches. I don't view it as I paid for a car that Tesla still owns the rights to modify as they see fit.

I understand your assessment. I'm actually caught between a rock and a hard place on this one because I work for a company that requires me to write software (Linux) for our customers.
If a customer comes to me with software I wrote 3 years ago and I have made 367 updates since then......I can't support that. The customer has EVERY right to not update their hardware with the software that I have written, however there may have been a hundred different iterations of that software and I can't guarantee that the software I wrote 3 years ago is compatible with an app that you just downloaded "today" from some new company.
Updates in software and technology is rolling out at an extraordinary pace.

On another note....with advances in technology comes advances in laws and regulations. If a new AP law gets enforced and Tesla is able to allow their previously sold cars to comply with the law through updates and "a person" does not allow Tesla to update their car which makes them non compliant.....then that's not Teslas problem.
That's the conversation that is being had in my company. I'm sure we are all aware of all that mumbo jumbo called a disclaimer that we pass over when first installing software and such - Well there is a new disclaimer in my company that states if your device is non compliant with the law due to your personal reluctance to allow free compliance updates then you - the owner - are liable for any detrimental results caused by your device.

Sooooo. Its your call.

 

[democappy]

I understand your assessment. I'm actually caught between a rock and a hard place on this one because I work for a company that requires me to write software (Linux) for our customers.
If a customer comes to me with software I wrote 3 years ago and I have made 367 updates since then......I can't support that. The customer has EVERY right to not update their hardware with the software that I have written, however there may have been a hundred different iterations of that software and I can't guarantee that the software I wrote 3 years ago is compatible with an app that you just downloaded "today" from some new company.
Updates in software and technology is rolling out at an extraordinary pace.

On another note....with advances in technology comes advances in laws and regulations. If a new AP law gets enforced and Tesla is able to allow their previously sold cars to comply with the law through updates and "a person" does not allow Tesla to update their car which makes them non compliant.....then that's not Teslas problem.
That's the conversation that is being had in my company. I'm sure we are all aware of all that mumbo jumbo called a disclaimer that we pass over when first installing software and such - Well there is a new disclaimer in my company that states if your device is non compliant with the law due to your personal reluctance to allow free compliance updates then you - the owner - are liable for any detrimental results caused by your device.

Sooooo. Its your call.

I think I am on the same page with you here. If a customer didn't wish to install the latest software, I also wouldn't expect Tesla to have to support the old software either. However, I would still expect the warranty to be 100% valid because I view that as covering the hardware (if you can call a car hardware). I guess I am thinking of Tesla as the hardware company when I am making the purchase and not the software company even though you are technically stuck with their software if you buy their hardware.

I would also put legal onus on the customer to comply with laws. Especially considering I don't think of a car as being region locked when it comes to software. The HK examples may already be showing how naïve I am on that point though

 

[Garlan Garner]

I think I am on the same page with you here. If a customer didn't wish to install the latest software, I also wouldn't expect Tesla to have to support the old software either. However, I would still expect the warranty to be 100% valid because I view that as covering the hardware (if you can call a car hardware). I guess I am thinking of Tesla as the hardware company when I am making the purchase and not the software company even though you are technically stuck with their software if you buy their hardware.

I would also put legal onus on the customer to comply with laws. Especially considering I don't think of a car as being region locked when it comes to software. The HK examples may already be showing how naïve I am on that point though

Yes absolutely. We are in 100% agreement. Tesla should honor all hardware issues for the full duration of the warranty.

What's interesting is that the line between Software vs. Hardware is becoming more blurred everyday.

 

[Roamer]

Five cars over three years. Only issue with updates is the worry that at some point they won't waste money updating the older legacy models.

No issue at all with a company spending time and money to improve a product I own. Not like BMW that charges over $200 just to get a years out of date map disk for the Nav system.

Or every other car on the road that requires a visit to the dealer to update software. That's if you are even told an update is available. And being charged for a service visit.

Not the least bit concerned with Tesla continuing to improve sold products. Wish others would do it.

 

[Beryl]

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....

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.

These posts reflect my thoughts when reading through this thread. If an owner kept an unpatched vehicle off of public roads, I wouldn't care. If you buy a Telsa, you can do whatever you want with it. However, I don't think any vehicle with known and resolvable safety problems should be allowed on public roads.

 

[Drivin]

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

If that is what you agreed to when you bought the car, then sure.

Otherwise, it is unethical (possibly illegal) to change the terms of your warranty or service calls after the fact.

 

[ohmman]

This topic was covered extensively in this relatively contentious thread. The argument against the "public road" theory would be that you should only be forced to apply NHTSA mandated (or similar for your jurisdiction) patches. That's not my argument, to be clear.

I continue to say that's it's in Tesla's best interest to spell this out for themselves and for owners. It's not worth winging it.

 

[CHG-ON]

I hate that I voted yes. But I really think that they need to in order to effectively manage the fleet of cars. Otherwise it becomes the wild west with a product that can kill us if not operating correctly. I see it as a safety issue. Not to mention the support nightmare of old version, which software companies have had to deal with forever.