"Temporarily" Better Be A Short Time, Or Tesla Will Again Be Over-promising And Under-Delivering

[Topher]

I don't understand people's complaint about 'regulatory approval' with reference to improved auto-pilot. If you are sitting in the driver's seat, paying attention, ready to take over, you are satisfying the legal requirements already. If the car is capable of driving from CA to NY with no driver input (after selecting destination), you can do that NOW. You just can't do it from the back seat. Autonomous driving at this level is exactly like a much better auto-pilot, not a reduced one (since it hasn't been made legal).

Thank you kindly.

 

[Boatguy]

I don't understand people's complaint about 'regulatory approval' with reference to improved auto-pilot. If you are sitting in the driver's seat, paying attention, ready to take over, you are satisfying the legal requirements already. If the car is capable of driving from CA to NY with no driver input (after selecting destination), you can do that NOW. You just can't do it from the back seat. Autonomous driving at this level is exactly like a much better auto-pilot, not a reduced one (since it hasn't been made legal).

Thank you kindly.

If that's the case, then why did Tesla put the caveat on the order page? Surely they would not be creating doubt in the minds of potential buyers if they didn't feel they needed to protect themselves from liability for not delivering what they are advertising/selling.

 

[Topher]

If that's the case, then why did Tesla put the caveat on the order page? Surely they would not be creating doubt in the minds of potential buyers if they didn't feel they needed to protect themselves from liability for not delivering what they are advertising/selling.

Have you seen what morons do with the current auto-pilot? Amazes me that they don't have PAGES of caveats.

"subject to regulatory approval" (which means getting through a process that no manufacturer has traversed and governments have little experience with). Until that happens, your new Tesla will have less AP functionality than an AP 1.0 car.

"Subject to regulatory approval" only applies to additional functionality (or NEW regulations). The AP you get from 2.0 hardware will soon be equivalent to an AP 1.0 car.

Thank you kindly.

 

[u00mem9]

I don't understand people's complaint about 'regulatory approval' with reference to improved auto-pilot. If you are sitting in the driver's seat, paying attention, ready to take over, you are satisfying the legal requirements already. If the car is capable of driving from CA to NY with no driver input (after selecting destination), you can do that NOW. You just can't do it from the back seat. Autonomous driving at this level is exactly like a much better auto-pilot, not a reduced one (since it hasn't been made legal).

Thank you kindly.

I'm not sure if you understand the situation. The cars built with the new hardware can NOT do what you are saying. They do not have AP1.0 level capability. It is unclear but likely that regulators will be involved in that first wave of capability updates even if only in a consulting format.

That is why people are concerned. Great to have the new hardware's potential...but with a dubious plan on rolling out the functionality...combined with Tesla's in-house software release track record...tough not to be concerned.

 

[Boatguy]

"Subject to regulatory approval" only applies to additional functionality (or NEW regulations). The AP you get from 2.0 hardware will soon be equivalent to an AP 1.0 car.

I understand the rollout as:

October: Degraded AP 1.0 functionality on AP 2.0 h/w

December: Enhanced AP on AP 2.0 h/w (which sounds an awful lot like AP 1.0 functionality, but with "greater accuracy and redundancy".)

Someday: Full self-driving

The web site says:

"Tesla's Enhanced Autopilot software is expected to complete validation and be rollout out to your car via an over-the-air update in December 2016, subject to regulatory approval."

So Tesla has inserted a big regulatory caveat to delivery of anything more than degraded AP 1.0 performance on new cars.

And BTW, the "on-ramp to off-ramp" capability was promised to AP 1.0 owners as part of 8.1, which Elon seems to have quit talking about...

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[bob_p]

Isn't 8.1 supposed to have the improved and user customizable interface?

Oh wait, that was supposed to be 7.1...

 

[Topher]

The cars built with the new hardware can NOT do what you are saying. They do not have AP1.0 level capability.

Cars with AP 2.0 Hardware are able to perform AP 1.0 functionality. That ability is currently (until Dec or so) in non-functional testing mode, I understand this. But that wasn't my point. Cars with autonomous driving capability (of which there are none at the moment) can easily simulate a vastly improved AP 1.0 functionality with no regulatory approval. Their lane-keeping ability will be (almost by definition) better than current lane-keeping. TACC ability will be better than current. Unless there is NEW regulation relative to AP 1.0 functionality, AP 2.0 can do the same thing (better) with no more regulatory issues than the current AP 1.0.

Thank you kindly.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

The fact that Tesla qualified that even EAP is subject to regulatory approval - not just self drive - smells like Tesla cut a deal with NHTSA as a result of the Autopilot investigation.

 

[u00mem9]

The fact that Tesla qualified that even EAP is subject to regulatory approval - not just self drive - smells like Tesla cut a deal with NHTSA as a result of the Autopilot investigation.

Exactly. Just like V8.0 which was essentially a 'safety patch' disguised as an upgrade...that was obviously done with the agreement of NHTSA. The regulators are involved in of these release approvals and will be going forward.

On a side note, I have trouble believing that Tesla will really create a set of autopilot limitations just for the customers who refuse to pay to upgrade orders that were placed in between AP1.0 and AP2.0. I expect everyone with AP2.0 hardware that paid for AP will end up with EAP. I'm not in that situation but I think anyone agreeing to pay the extra 2k is a fool. Call Tesla's bluff! They are never going to validate a 3rd software permutation for that tiny set of cars.

 

[Boatguy]

Exactly. Just like V8.0 which was essentially a 'safety patch' disguised as an upgrade...that was obviously done with the agreement of NHTSA. The regulators are involved in of these release approvals and will be going forward.

On a side note, I have trouble believing that Tesla will really create a set of autopilot limitations just for the customers who refuse to pay to upgrade orders that were placed in between AP1.0 and AP2.0. I expect everyone with AP2.0 hardware that paid for AP will end up with EAP. I'm not in that situation but I think anyone agreeing to pay the extra 2k is a fool. Call Tesla's bluff! They are never going to validate a 3rd software permutation for that tiny set of cars.

Really. When will Tesla get a clue about how to treat customers? They're too small for class action which is protecting them thus far. Eventually this will be addressed by competition, but for the next couple of years they're seem to feel free to promise X, sell Y and deliver Z. And if Z doesn't quite meet Y and never meets X, then "hey, I'm saving the world, who's not for that?".

 

[Lump]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/401...1c0tf9t:dd4944a52d5a9f0f37f50559053ab629#alt1

Conclusion

As with everything related to Tesla, there is always both a lot more possible issues with any of the company's activities than the company is ever willing to acknowledge and a lot less substance and reality to the company's operations and products than the company is willing to admit.

Given that Tesla currently has no driving assistance features available at all, it is very clear that most of Tesla's imagined technology lead and supposed competitive advantages were actually just self-aggrandized claims about what were really just capabilities provided by a vendor. Tesla's new claims about "40-times more processing power" is also not an indicator of a competitive advantage or any proprietary technology as it is based on Nvidia's systems that any auto manufacturer can also use.

The additional complication in Tesla's claims is that they go well beyond just aggressive self-promotion given the company's huge capital needs. Tesla is not only attempting to manipulate customers into thinking less is more but its tenuous balancing act with public capital markets also includes attempting to put lipstick on the pig of its current operating problems and product development challenges. Tesla's sleight of hand of attempting to describe an unavailable product as a significant "new" product introduction shows Tesla's increasing desperation at maintaining a positive narrative given its need to raise huge amounts of capital.

Tesla's desperation is also now bordering on tricks used in common con games. Raising the price of existing functions of the previously available product by 100 percent when they are not even available is a classic con game tactic where part of the con is to attempt to raise the perceived value of the "object" which dupes the marks into becoming more enthusiastic about something that is now of supposedly greater value. Making broad claims about future attributes of something that are impossible to verify is also a typical part of common con games. Although the interruption of Autopilot availability is a difficult situation for Tesla, trying to mislead both vehicle buyers and investors about the reasons why is a new low for Tesla which does border on typical con games as described above.


Such a difficult situation is also of its own making similar to many other things the company has done poorly such as late and problem filled vehicle introductions, irresponsible and overstated product feature claims, and undisciplined capital management. The difficult situation for Tesla with the Autopilot interruption will also result in even greater future scrutiny of the company about the timing of reintroducing the now unavailable features previously in Autopilot. There will also be heightened scrutiny of the company about possible safety risks from not fully developed and tested features being rushed to market. All of the things described in this article continue to significantly raise the risk profile of owning Tesla stock.

 

[bob_p]

Overall, Tesla appears to be relatively close to delivering on their promises for AP 1.0, within the limits of the hardware capabilities.

If Tesla had followed the standard industry practice, they would have waited to deliver AP 1.0 until after they had it fully working and completely validated - and then put it into the next model year - which might have been the 2018 model year.

Instead, Tesla deployed the hardware early, provided interim software releases that implemented increasing functionality, and when they do get AP 1.0 fully operational, it will be quickly distributed to over 2 years of cars already sold with the AP 1.0 hardware.

Tesla is repeating that strategy with AP 2.0 - deploying the hardware now, and then planning to deploy increasing functionality over the next few years as the software gets developed and matures. And while for owners buying AP 2.0 in the next few years, while they may not get the full benefits of AP 2.0, they will be in a position to get those features immediately after Tesla is ready to release them.

This is a different strategy than the other manufacturers, and from a technology standpoint, an interesting strategy to adopt. Especially because they plan to use the fleet of early AP 2.0 cars to train and then validate the new software.

 

[Max*]

Tesla appears to be relatively close to delivering on their promises for AP 1.0

That's arguable.

 

[AWDtsla]

Really. When will Tesla get a clue about how to treat customers? They're too small for class action which is protecting them thus far. Eventually this will be addressed by competition, but for the next couple of years they're seem to feel free to promise X, sell Y and deliver Z. And if Z doesn't quite meet Y and never meets X, then "hey, I'm saving the world, who's not for that?".

They are not too small. They're destroying their brand despite almost desperate pleas from their fan/owner base. Apparently, lawsuits are what it will take.

 

[bob_p]

That's arguable.

I said "relatively" close - which for Tesla could be days - weeks - months - years...