Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla infotainment system upgradeable from MCU1 to MCU2

SmartElectric

Active Member
Jul 9, 2014
2,523
2,402
Toronto,Canada
Had I been told a month or even 2 months after ordering: "hey, there's a new upgraded MCU coming that will significantly improve performance, would you like to transfer your deposit to a new build?", of course I would have taken it

Tesla is a business.

Osborne effect - Wikipedia
a company that took more than a year to make its next product available, and eventually went bankrupt in 1983

Osborne is no longer a business, and is a shining example to those that haven't learned a valuable business lesson.


But Tesla didn't, because Tesla didn't and doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, not making people happy. This is why they won't offer an upgrade

Tesla cared enough to continuously innovate and not wait for model years like other car makers.
So a lot more people get to enjoy improvements than would otherwise be the case.

I have an ancient Model S, it's still the best product I've ever owned, even if it doesn't drive itself.
 

MP3Mike

Well-Known Member
Feb 1, 2016
16,512
38,694
Oregon
Considering i drove 3 hours with the fam to get the car and had waited 3 months for the car, I made the decision to not walk away. You're right. I could have lost 2 grand, 12 hours of driving, pissed of my family,

. in my case, I had no other option. The train had left the station.

No it hadn't. You knew before you went, so you would have only been out the $2k and waiting fit the new car:

I found out less than a week before, while the car was already at the SC waiting to delivered. i
 

Trebek1762

Let's play jeopardy
Feb 6, 2018
345
484
Wisconsin
We will just have to agree to disagree here.

End of the day, I chose to take delivery of a car that I was happy when I ordered it. Got second thoughts once an upgrade was snuck in. Made the decision not to throw 2 grand away, save time, not p1ss off my wife, and most importantly, not p1ss off my wife over my insecurity and angst of having an older system.

Can I still be upset and vent on an online forum full of enthusiasts who want the best out there? Dang right I can.
Is Tesla interested in making their new cars better? Absolutely
Is Tesla interested in making their older cars better? As much as they have the ability to. Which sadly, we've reached the end, which is unfortunate on a car that was built...LAST YEAR.

Without question it's the best and most fun car I've ever driven. And on the plus side, i've got spotify, which I wouldn't have with MCU2...so I've got that going for me...which is nice.


SO back to the original topic...
 
Last edited:

docl

Member
May 11, 2019
15
20
Denmark
No, because they explicitly sold "to be delivered" features to AP2 hardware owners that they've determined *requires* new hardware to function. They had no choice on this one.

No such features have ever been promised or sold to MCU1 owners.

Regarding AP you are completely right, Tesla literally promised features that can't be fullfilled with earlier AP versions. However, didn't they also advertise with advanced summon to AP1 TMS cars way back?

In regards to MCU, there have been no direct promises to future features, however 1) features already there from the beginning are not working as they should, eg Spotify and browser, with V9 and MCU1 2) AP features and MCU is somehow depending on eachother, since AP2.5 cars with MCU1 are struggling with MCU performance, more than AP1 and AP2.
Bottom line, if MCU1 cannot deliver what was sold and promised with both basic features like Spotify and browser AND advanced AP features, then the product is not sold as advertised..
 

chillaban

Active Member
May 5, 2016
3,723
6,597
Bay Area
I dunno I’m not demanding the retrofit to MCU2 as if I’m somehow entitled to it. MCU1 still works but it is kind of important to me the ability to pay money to have things retrofitted on a car without having to buy a new one.

my first Audi didn’t support Bluetooth music streaming despite supporting Bluetooth hands free. The next model year did and it was just a software change. The dealership seriously wanted to talk about trading in for the next model year.

Tesla’s not that awful yet when it comes to leaving existing customers behind but the promise of doing cars “different” is part of the appeal to me.
 

Seattle

Member
Dec 9, 2012
365
87
Bellevue, WA
That all might be true if Tesla were a private company, but there's this thing called Wall Street that keeps their feet to the fire to sell as many new cars as possible, and unfortunately, with zero regards to the environment.
...

If there is anyone who isn't too concerned about making wall street happy it would be mr "I have all details of a buyout confirmed" musk. But also it's a myth that companies are required to only focus on profits over all other concerns. Finally, I agree with you that not selling mcu upgrades would likely lead to more sales. It's influencing me to think about buying a current gen car!
 

HankLloydRight

No Roads
Supporting Member
Jan 18, 2014
13,069
11,318
Connecticut
If there is anyone who isn't too concerned about making wall street happy it would be mr "I have all details of a buyout confirmed" musk.

Sure, he's not concerned about making Wall Street happy, that's well known. But he still must, every single quarter.

But also it's a myth that companies are required to only focus on profits over all other concerns.

I'm confused as to why you think it's a myth? Public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. If any company places some other mission above that, they'll be pummeled to death in the public markets. That but doesn't preclude other secondary environmental or humanitarian missions, as long as they are secondary.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: boaterva and croman

ucmndd

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2016
7,011
13,798
California
I'm confused as to why you think it's a myth? Public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. If any company places some other mission above that, they'll be pummeled to death in the public markets.

This has been in the news a lot recently, with the Business Roundtable releasing a statement that (at least superficially) moves away from the Friedman-esque “profit above everything” model to one focused on “stakeholder value” - not just “shareholder”.

181 Top CEOs Have Realized Companies Need a Purpose Beyond Profit
 
  • Like
Reactions: MorrisonHiker

cduzz

Member
Jun 6, 2019
427
562
boston ma
Sure, he's not concerned about making Wall Street happy, that's well known. But he still must, every single quarter.



I'm confused as to why you think it's a myth? Public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. If any company places some other mission above that, they'll be pummeled to death in the public markets. That but doesn't preclude other secondary environmental or humanitarian missions, as long as they are secondary.

MBAs certainly push the notion that increasing share price on a quarter by quarter basis is the sole obligation of a company.

One can observe from Enron or Purdue or Boeing that maximizing QonQ returns does not always work out. Amazon famously told share holders to bide their time for a decade before turning on the money spigot; turning it on to maximum (for amazon) may end up harming their brand equity in the end if consumers buy counterfeit children's aspirin on amazon and their kids turn purple.

The list of companies that make decisions on the basis of "what would a sociopath do to maximize money before EOQ while strictly staying within what my legal department says is legal" that end up evaporating in a cloud of fraud and tragedy and greed is extensive.

As far as Tesla goes -- if they're in a place where they need to convert owners of S/X to upgrade in order to stay solvent, tesla is 100% screwed. Tesla's market propositions are "we need to convert cars to electric"; "electric cars last a long time and are a good investment even if the upfront costs are larger than an ICE car"; "tesla cars are upgraded even after we sell them because we're awesome"; "there is way more demand than there is production capacity"

If you assume those statements are correct, telling customers "pound sand buy a new car" may earn you a small number of new car sales but will also make it clear that several of your core values are lies.

On the other hand, making a 3rd version of the MCU that has plugs for old (MCU1) and new(MCU2) and newer (plaid) platforms may cost you money to develop the new board, may cost you some marginal number of sales of people who want to upgrade / repair MCU rather than throw the car out and buy another one (which may not be a tesla, if the owner is selling out of disappointment), and some cost in making the replacement part more expensive.

But making / selling an MCU2.5 puts the chit down that tesla stands behind their products and that they're good investments (for the consumer).

A universal intel MCU is a bad "MBA/sociopath" move, but it is great marketing probably not actually an enormous amount of money.

Burning your high-touch customers with yellow screens, broken door handles, dead MCUs, etc where you're constantly giving them $500-$3500 bills in things that are clearly design defects will eventually soil the Tesla brand, and that dirt will affect their ability to sell into other markets. "You want me to spend millions on trucks when you can't even make a damned door handle or a computer that works past the end of the lease?"

We shall see. Tesla's record of "MBA" vs "good company" isn't actually very good, if the OG roadster is any indication.
 
Last edited:

Krash

Data Technician
Supporting Member
Apr 18, 2017
1,962
2,169
Intermountain US
...We shall see. Tesla's record of "MBA" vs "good company" isn't actually very good, if the OG roadster is any indication.
Are you referring to the fact that they didn't retrofit the OG roadster to supercharging? I thought that they released an updated battery option for the roadster as very "good company".
 

cduzz

Member
Jun 6, 2019
427
562
boston ma
Are you referring to the fact that they didn't retrofit the OG roadster to supercharging? I thought that they released an updated battery option for the roadster as very "good company".

Yes, selling an updated battery is definitely an example of "good company" behavior, and the sort of support that would be par for competing with mercedes or lexus or porsche.

I'm totally willing to believe that this is a hit-piece and an example of big-petrol and disgruntled ex-employees
Keeping Tesla Roadsters Alive Is Serious Work

I saw this at the local service center, so apparently you can get some work done by Tesla still...
mjHXELM.png


I'm also totally willing to believe that Telsa offers absolutely minimal support for the OG roadster and keeping one alive is comparable to keeping a Datsun SPL212 on the road.... (reliable and such for ordinary use, just hope nothing gets damaged or broken). This is in contrast to companies like Mercedes or Porsche who will happily take your money and (probably) fix your however-old-and-nasty car.

I'm not saying that tesla necessarily needs to provide this sort of legacy support, but it clearly does burnish the image of those companies that do provide this support.
 

HankLloydRight

No Roads
Supporting Member
Jan 18, 2014
13,069
11,318
Connecticut
MBAs certainly push the notion that increasing share price on a quarter by quarter basis is the sole obligation of a company.

I never said 'sole obligation'. I said primary.

One can observe from Enron or Purdue or Boeing that maximizing QonQ returns does not always work out.

Your conflating unethical, illegal, and immoral behavior with maximizing profit. It is possible to maximize profit in an entirely ethical and legal manner.

I also subscribe to the proposed theory that not offering upgrades to older cars actually gets more EVs on the road and actually supports Tesla's market proposition of "we need to convert cars to electric."
 

DigAdrenaline

Member
Jul 27, 2018
361
352
Canada
Public companies have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value. If any company places some other mission above that, they'll be pummeled to death in the public markets. That but doesn't preclude other secondary environmental or humanitarian missions, as long as they are secondary.

Google’s IPO was quite controversial because they flat out said that they would not follow this rule. Many believed it to be illegal at the time.
 

SmartElectric

Active Member
Jul 9, 2014
2,523
2,402
Toronto,Canada
As far as Tesla goes -- if they're in a place where they need to convert owners of S/X to upgrade in order to stay solvent, tesla is 100% screwed

Straw. Man. No one here claimed Tesla would die if they did this one MCU1->2 project. Your invention of that makes your post over the top and ridiculous.

Tesla needs to focus on many things, if they were to spend effort on MCU upgrades rather than other priorities, it would affect S/X sales, but not to an extent that would end the company. The counter point to your claim is easy to understand, it's not a general priority to upgrade the hardware of cars in the field when new capabilities are available every 6 months. Some things like FSD may certainly required hardware upgrades, for which Tesla expressly planned for in advance in HW 2.5 to HW 3.0 for example.

There isn't a business model to make money on MCU upgrades, as Tesla has upgraded it's software so MCU1 is generally accepted to be well reviewed/rated in terms of usability and capability compared to it's non-Tesla peer group.
 

viper2ko

Active Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,452
1,532
USA
We will just have to agree to disagree here.

End of the day, I chose to take delivery of a car that I was happy when I ordered it. Got second thoughts once an upgrade was snuck in. Made the decision not to throw 2 grand away, save time, not p1ss off my wife, and most importantly, not p1ss off my wife over my insecurity and angst of having an older system.

Can I still be upset and vent on an online forum full of enthusiasts who want the best out there? Dang right I can.
Is Tesla interested in making their new cars better? Absolutely
Is Tesla interested in making their older cars better? As much as they have the ability to. Which sadly, we've reached the end.

Without question it's the best and most fun car I've ever driven. And on the plus side, i've got spotify, which I wouldn't have with MCU2...so I've got that going for me...which is nice.


SO back to the original topic...
Straw. Man. No one here claimed Tesla would die if they did this one MCU1->2 project. Your invention of that makes your post over the top and ridiculous.

Tesla needs to focus on many things, if they were to spend effort on MCU upgrades rather than other priorities, it would affect S/X sales, but not to an extent that would end the company. The counter point to your claim is easy to understand, it's not a general priority to upgrade the hardware of cars in the field when new capabilities are available every 6 months. Some things like FSD may certainly required hardware upgrades, for which Tesla expressly planned for in advance in HW 2.5 to HW 3.0 for example.

There isn't a business model to make money on MCU upgrades, as Tesla has upgraded it's software so MCU1 is generally accepted to be well reviewed/rated in terms of usability and capability compared to it's non-Tesla peer group.

Like spend money on making more games that MCU 1 can't support. Spend money on making a web browser that mcu1 can't support
 

SmartElectric

Active Member
Jul 9, 2014
2,523
2,402
Toronto,Canada
Like spend money on making more games that MCU 1 can't support. Spend money on making a web browser that mcu1 can't support

Our classic 2013 Model S85 with MCU1 has usability (via software updates) FAR beyond the software the car shipped with 6.5 years ago.

You are completely off base complaining about lack of MCU1 to 2 upgrade when the majority of the usability has been vastly improved (common opinion with some people that feel otherwise of course) without needing a hardware upgrade.

Tesla offered a 4g radio upgrade, that was pretty cool, but I still have 3g as for the rare times I want 4g I share my hotspot, so $500 didn't make any sense to spend on that.

Tesla is getting massive attention because of the small focus they have made on games and entertainment, it's just that your list of wants is not getting attention that upsets you, but your wants aren't driving cash in the bank, games are bank, that's a fact.
 

viper2ko

Active Member
Aug 30, 2017
1,452
1,532
USA
Our classic 2013 Model S85 with MCU1 has usability (via software updates) FAR beyond the software the car shipped with 6.5 years ago.

You are completely off base complaining about lack of MCU1 to 2 upgrade when the majority of the usability has been vastly improved (common opinion with some people that feel otherwise of course) without needing a hardware upgrade.

Tesla offered a 4g radio upgrade, that was pretty cool, but I still have 3g as for the rare times I want 4g I share my hotspot, so $500 didn't make any sense to spend on that.

Tesla is getting massive attention because of the small focus they have made on games and entertainment, it's just that your list of wants is not getting attention that upsets you, but your wants aren't driving cash in the bank, games are bank, that's a fact.

Elon said MCU 1 owners would get a working browser. Did he give up on that?
 

tyson

Member
Nov 13, 2016
479
395
IA
Our classic 2013 Model S85 with MCU1 has usability (via software updates) FAR beyond the software the car shipped with 6.5 years ago.

You are completely off base complaining about lack of MCU1 to 2 upgrade when the majority of the usability has been vastly improved (common opinion with some people that feel otherwise of course) without needing a hardware upgrade.

Tesla offered a 4g radio upgrade, that was pretty cool, but I still have 3g as for the rare times I want 4g I share my hotspot, so $500 didn't make any sense to spend on that.

Tesla is getting massive attention because of the small focus they have made on games and entertainment, it's just that your list of wants is not getting attention that upsets you, but your wants aren't driving cash in the bank, games are bank, that's a fact.
I would agree with this but only in the context of an car that has either no AP or AP1. In those cases the MCU performs great. On AP2 or 2.5 though... Not so much... My voice controls rarely work because the MCU is tapped out by other processes. Now I can make things work better by not running dashcam or sentry and when absolutely necessary changing the priority of a given process but I shouldn't have to do these things to get a usable interface. Forget V10 video or a usable browser or the other games. I don't know about everyone else with AP2 or 2.5 but I would pay just to get an MCU that works and runs the features that we have now.
 

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top