Link us to the debunking please. I can't imagine fleet learning is a total hoax.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Should FSDC (Full Self-Driving Capabilities) be an option right now?
- Thread starter CTgigawatt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- auto pilot 2.0 fsdc Model S
It is my understanding that our cost is $4k post delivery no matter what. They can't give you the option to skip it for $1k more, and then bait and switch and say oh now it's a $7k option tough luck...
If so, that's different. I thought it was "It's $4K after purchase - but we can raise it any time we like, so no guarantees."
Thanks for the clarification on that point.
On my original post in this thread I only mentioned the part about revenue, and not being able to declare revenue it from it. I should have stuck with that.
But, then I error'd in thinking they couldn't touch the money for some reason.
Apparently it's really an interest free loan that goes down as a liability. Just like the Model 3 deposits.
Hahaha! People actually believed a Model 3 would deliver itself. This is what I mean - you put a microphone in front of Elon and he starts seamlessly blending reality with stuff he dreamt about the night before. But you have to own a Tesla know that.
You also have to own a Tesla to understand why its a terrible idea to buy the first Model 3's off the line. People bragging about their place in the queue don't fully understand what they're getting into.
Last edited:
Best post of the thread!!! Bravo!
Alien Dreadnought is my personal favorite. I'm LOL'ing just typing the words....!
Complex computer science problems are fairly immune to improvement from vast amounts of money. Consider the amount of money Microsoft spent on windows post Win 98. Then consider Linux.
Good software is developed by the right people working in the right direction. Certainly underfunding hurts, but throwing money at the problem often doesn't help.
Working with very limited hardware resources before the problem is solved, as Tesla does, maximizes the difficulty.
Well, because it's not just a software upgrade. The self-drive option doubles the number of cameras from 4 to 8.
Sure, they could release something to differentiate the product levels. But it won't be full self-drive. Maybe they'll get all those extra cameras working? Thing is, if the cameras let it pick up more obstacles, but the software doesn't recognize them, then you're no further ahead.
OBX John
Autonomous Driving Enthusiast
disagree
hos epi to polu
They do. ALL Teslas built Q4 2016 up until now come with the hardware to be fully self-driving, whether you purchase the option or not.
It is perfectly fine to prefer to adopt a "wait and see" attitude toward FSD, or a skeptical one, or even to believe that no way in h*ll will FSD ever work.
But what I don't understand is the idea that it is somehow "wrong" or "immoral" for Tesla to offer customers who want it the opportunity to order FSD now, at at a discount to the price offered to customers who activate it later. As other posters on this thread have made clear, there are some people who enjoy the experience of being early adopters and look forward to trying out the new FSD features as the roll out. Consumer choice is virtually always a good thing -- and I don't think Tesla customers need nannies to tell them what features they can and cannot order for their cars.
There is also something that many people seem to be missing. Tesla has to shell out money -- lots of it -- for the extra FSD hardware and software development. This investment benefits every new Tesla vehicle and owner, whether FSD is ordered or not.
So the question is, how does that hardware and software get paid for?
Option 1 -- the favorite of most Tesla owners -- would be for Tesla to pay 100% of the costs upfront, and customers only pay if and when they activate FSD. But sorry, this is the real world and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Why on earth would people think they are entitled to get the hardware free, and the software development free, with Tesla shouldering all of the costs? Even for the FSD skeptics or people who just want to drive their own car, the presence of the system on the vehicle and Tesla's development efforts are already adding to the value of the car, like it or not. Especially given all of the other demands on Tesla's resources (Model 3 in particular), it is unrealistic to expect Tesla to shoulder 100% of the upfront costs of the system.
Option 2 -- the "normal" option. Since the hardware is on every car, the normal path that most companies would follow would be to factor the cost of the hardware (and probably part of the software development) into the price of each and every vehicle, with an additional fee to activate the software. Tesla could have done that, but I don't think an upfront price increase across the board would have made people very happy, especially the FSD skeptics out there who don't think they'll ever use the system.
So that leads us to option 3 -- Tesla allows customers who choose to pay up front a discount compared to those who prefer to wait and see how well FSD works before buying, who will have to pay a little more. Tesla owners can choose for themselves which way they want to play it.
Ironically, the people who benefit the most from this option are those who doubt FSD will ever work or just don't want it since Tesla was not forced to raise the price of every car to cover the extra hardware and software development. The skeptics can sit tight and watch FSD development play out without paying an extra dime. At some point, they can choose to activate FSD. Or they can choose not to, in which case they will end up avoiding the price increase that would have been needed to recoup the cost of the FSD hardware and software because Tesla came up with a more creative way to handle it.
In the real world where there is no free lunch, this is a win-win-win scenario for FSD skeptics, FSD early adopters and Tesla.
But what I don't understand is the idea that it is somehow "wrong" or "immoral" for Tesla to offer customers who want it the opportunity to order FSD now, at at a discount to the price offered to customers who activate it later. As other posters on this thread have made clear, there are some people who enjoy the experience of being early adopters and look forward to trying out the new FSD features as the roll out. Consumer choice is virtually always a good thing -- and I don't think Tesla customers need nannies to tell them what features they can and cannot order for their cars.
There is also something that many people seem to be missing. Tesla has to shell out money -- lots of it -- for the extra FSD hardware and software development. This investment benefits every new Tesla vehicle and owner, whether FSD is ordered or not.
So the question is, how does that hardware and software get paid for?
Option 1 -- the favorite of most Tesla owners -- would be for Tesla to pay 100% of the costs upfront, and customers only pay if and when they activate FSD. But sorry, this is the real world and there is no such thing as a free lunch. Why on earth would people think they are entitled to get the hardware free, and the software development free, with Tesla shouldering all of the costs? Even for the FSD skeptics or people who just want to drive their own car, the presence of the system on the vehicle and Tesla's development efforts are already adding to the value of the car, like it or not. Especially given all of the other demands on Tesla's resources (Model 3 in particular), it is unrealistic to expect Tesla to shoulder 100% of the upfront costs of the system.
Option 2 -- the "normal" option. Since the hardware is on every car, the normal path that most companies would follow would be to factor the cost of the hardware (and probably part of the software development) into the price of each and every vehicle, with an additional fee to activate the software. Tesla could have done that, but I don't think an upfront price increase across the board would have made people very happy, especially the FSD skeptics out there who don't think they'll ever use the system.
So that leads us to option 3 -- Tesla allows customers who choose to pay up front a discount compared to those who prefer to wait and see how well FSD works before buying, who will have to pay a little more. Tesla owners can choose for themselves which way they want to play it.
Ironically, the people who benefit the most from this option are those who doubt FSD will ever work or just don't want it since Tesla was not forced to raise the price of every car to cover the extra hardware and software development. The skeptics can sit tight and watch FSD development play out without paying an extra dime. At some point, they can choose to activate FSD. Or they can choose not to, in which case they will end up avoiding the price increase that would have been needed to recoup the cost of the FSD hardware and software because Tesla came up with a more creative way to handle it.
In the real world where there is no free lunch, this is a win-win-win scenario for FSD skeptics, FSD early adopters and Tesla.
Last edited:
Do you really think that everyone is not paying for that extra hardware? Its built into the price of the vehicle already. This is why the Model 3 can break this company because these customers that can barely afford a $35k car are pre-ordering it and they will not be buying $8k features and I would say that probably 70% of these users will never use this technology. Tesla should be selling the vehicle without all the hardware.
You're joking, right? You're saying it costs $3 billion in R&D based on $30,000 per vehicle across 100,000 annual deliveries? Not.
$3,000 for a feature that doesn't exist and likely won't in its advertised form is $3,000 too much.
Then why does the Design Studio say...
Oh... "active cameras". Does this mean they're built-in but not turned on?
You mean the same way Tesla is loose with the facts by telling you your "effective" price after deducting your tax credit and gasoline savings? Or the way Tesla openly promises lighted vanity mirrors and then never delivers? Or the way it advertised automated onramp to offramp driving, summoning and other AP1 features that never came to be?
The cost to obtain those features IS $10,000 if you get them after delivery. They are not being inaccurate, they are quoting the maximum price being charged by Tesla for those features. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yes. All cars being built since late October have 8 cameras. Supposedly only 4 will be used for EAP and all 8 will be enabled for FSD.
I'd be sanctioned by a judge for that kind of unethical statement. It might be true under a set of facts but they never disclose those facts. Further, a lesson all kids should learn, but clearly as adults refuse to follow, is that someone's bad acts don't give you license to do it. We'd have a whole world of blind people. Just because we have a poorly taught infant for a President doesn't mean all morality should be abandoned.
Tesla has done bad things but there are better ways to hold them accountable.
Tesla has done bad things but there are better ways to hold them accountable.
Snapchat was 3 guys in one room with one server for a long time, how much did IBM spend on Watson?
Which one does the market value higher right now?
Similar threads
