E90alex
Active Member
They were not always open. 100% false. That’s what Elon would like you to believe though so you keep simping for him.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla forced to open superchargers to unlock billions
- Thread starter Sambub
- Start date
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
This is not the same thing as an open standard.
In 15 more years, all of this is going to be irrelevant and we'll have a new connector to support megawatt charging on solid state batteries and three phase AC. CCS2 is too clunky to be that connector and its DC terminals don't support a high enough voltage and current level.
What?!? You know the entire North American grid is 3 phase, from generation to transmission to substations to distribution. And what do you think 120Y/208V service is? There are many apartment buildings and commercial properties that have level 2 EVSEs and I only get 208V single phase from them because our crappy connectors don't supply 3 phases to the vehicle. If they did, I could charge twice as fast.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
While many of the examples you cite started off that way, they only took off and became true global standards after control of the technology and its evolution was handed over to a governing body (e.g. the WiFi Alliance).
The Tesla connector is a "standard" in the way the Lightning port is a standard (as in, it's not - market saturation does not a standard make).
CCS is a standard like USB-C - even though key elements of the technology are licensed by specific companies, the governance of the physical port, technical enhancements, and so on are controlled by a consortium and not the whim of a single Mercurial CEO.
You say this as if it matters why they are different.
This is not really the case. For example Qualcomm has essentially owned the cellular data market for over a decade. IEEE 802.11 is also highly encumbered by patents. Calling something which is patent encumbered an “Open Standard” is a joke.
USB-C came out of Apple. The industry was screwing around with increasingly bad USB variants like mini-USB, Micro-USB, USB 3, and USB-3 “Micro-B” until Apple more or less pushed USB-C out there. For the first few years people made fun of it and aside from a few accessory makers, nobody used it. Micro-USB was the rule in the Android world for years after USB-C launched.
The idea that it was some kind of group effort to get it out is a joke. Yes, it was a “Standard” before Apple launched it. But it was based on (and sort of compatible with) Apple’s Thunderbolt cables.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
The point stands: No one individual or company can unilaterally decide the direction/fate of USB or Wifi because they’re governed by a consortium of stakeholders with vested interests.
That is not the case with the Tesla connector. Third parties would be insane to adopt Tesla’s port under the current “lol trust us” arrangement.
Choose:
- Unreliable and slow “Standard” backed by companies which will inevitably strand your customers on the side of the road. This dooms your electrification efforts.
- Jump in bed with Tesla and have a chance to survive and play second fiddle to Tesla.
In Europe and Asia there is competent competition. In the US, CCS providers are a joke.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Jumping to a silly false dilemma fallacy isn’t going to rescue this argument.
But since 2014, no?
Patents were open since 2014.
And there has been the option for other companies to use the network since at least 2014 if they help support it.
"As Elon has repeatedly made clear...we are very open to have [electric vehicles] made by other manufacturers use Superchargers," said an email from Alexis Georgeson, spokeswoman for Tesla. "They’d just have to contribute to the capital cost, such as determining what percentage of the time their cars are using the Supercharger network and making a contribution proportionate to that.”
Umm. It’s way more complicated than either viewpoint makes it.
Tesla has had their patents “Open” for a long time. It’s just been open with terms nobody was willing to accept. They’ve changed that up. IMO they waited too long, but perhaps not. It wasn’t clear until recently just how incompetent the competition was.
The poor connector is only part of the problem. At least CCS 2 in Europe locks on the car side.
Poorly made cables, terminals, full blown PC’s running software like windows, requiring more points of failure (ie screens, card readers for payment methods) all contribute to the reliability (or lack thereof) of a network.
Yes and no. Tesla opened their patents, but with a clause which made it unpalatable for competitors to accept.
The whole all-or-nothing approach was never going to float with companies that have large patent portfolios.
Their new approach is much more likely to get adopted and doesn’t require reciprocity. Arguably what they should have done 2-3 years ago.
E90alex
Active Member
But since 2014, no?
Patents were open since 2014.
And there has been the option for other companies to use the network since at least 2014 if they help support it.
"As Elon has repeatedly made clear...we are very open to have [electric vehicles] made by other manufacturers use Superchargers," said an email from Alexis Georgeson, spokeswoman for Tesla. "They’d just have to contribute to the capital cost, such as determining what percentage of the time their cars are using the Supercharger network and making a contribution proportionate to that.”
A Closer Look at Tesla’s Open-Source Patent Pledge
In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was “open-sourcing” Tesla’s patents. He argued that doing so would allow the electric vehicle market to grow more…
I’mA Closer Look at Tesla’s Open-Source Patent Pledge
In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was “open-sourcing” Tesla’s patents. He argued that doing so would allow the electric vehicle market to grow more…www.lexology.com
interesting. Well… think of where Tesla was in 2014. They were far from a powerhouse and had to protect themselves somehow.A Closer Look at Tesla’s Open-Source Patent Pledge
In 2014, Elon Musk announced that he was “open-sourcing” Tesla’s patents. He argued that doing so would allow the electric vehicle market to grow more…
Too bad everyone else messed up with the CCS path in US.
I don’t think it really changes things though. Other manufacturers would still have avoided Tesla. It’s only now that it is becoming evident the CCS network in US is a joke with few signs of actually getting better.
CCS in the US has always been a joke. The networks are underfunded, or in the case of Electrify America, born out of corruption. Since nobody other than Tesla took range seriously, the stations were underutilized and slow speeds tolerated.
The only thing which is a surprise is how poorly these networks have scaled up. If Ford and GM want their electrification efforts to succeed, they need to pump some serious capital into these networks or get in bed with Tesla.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
What reasonable response is there to an obvious logical fallacy? I’ve made my point, you responded with unrelated nonsense claiming a binary choice where one doesn’t exist.
lowtek
Active Member
Prediction: Tesla will open it up ... but non Tesla owners will pay a premium ...
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Similar threads
