Tesla remote detects Boost50 acceleration mod

[Fernand]

... and this has nothing to do with individuals' "right to repair" that IMHO should be imposed on manufacturers by law.

 

[ElectricIAC]

I think got it backwards. The more cars Tesla makes, the greater the potential revenue loss ($2,000 USD per car in this case), so it will become even more important to secure the paid features. It doesn't mater thay a hack comes from 10 person company or 10,000 person company.

Okay. With a regular ICE car, particularly a turbo one: you can uprate your peak power by any number of methods. That isn’t theft of service and neither is this.

 

[whitex]

Okay. With a regular ICE car, particularly a turbo one: you can uprate your peak power by any number of methods. That isn’t theft of service and neither is this.

Not exactly. Say you are using a free or inexpensive software to manage payroll for your company which allows you to manage up to 5 employees. Say you find a way to modify said software to manage 50,000 employees. Are you stealing services? Say you sell that software modification at a fraction of the cost the original company sells a 50,000 employee license, is that theft or not?

Software is a different concept than hardware - it is actually cheaper to ship the most capable software and only enable features which are paid for. The cost of duplication of software is almost free, no different than copying an ebook or a digital movie. Imagine you could purchase a video player, which would have a very large library of movies stored inside, so that they could play immediately regardless of your internet connection or lack thereof. The software on it would require you to make a payment to watch each movie. Say you found a way to modify the software to play all movies for free, is that ok? Are you claiming that since the movies were stored on a device you purchased, you own them all?

Then there is the issue of warranty. Hardware hacks, such as installing Nitrous Oxide boost are easy to detect and absolutely void your warranty. Software changes are much harder to detect. In this case, would you be ok if Tesla, rather than the warning approach they took, simply informed all the users of boost50 that their warranty on drivetrain and battery has been voided? They probably could win this in courts too, since they could say they detected you ran rogue custom software which might have at some point damaged the car (no way for you to prove that you didn't run different software yesterday than on the day you bring the car in for service).

Tesla model is to take advantage of the fact that many software can be shipped in a car disabled at practically no cost, to allow customers to upgrade remotely. To combat people hacking, Tesla will simply continue to lock things down more and more. If that gets ever gets defeated in courts, customers will lose as Tesla is left with two possibilities:

1. Tesla only produces top model, no more cheaper models (all model 3's start at $63K as they all have all software features enabled)
2. Tesla starts producing cheaper models cheaper, and no more remote upgrades. Less powerfull motors will be produces with thinner, cheaper wires, which will melt if you push too much power through them, there will be no cameras or AP computer built-in - you want to upgrade, buy a new car - you know, the old fashion way, like if you wanted a V8 instead of a V6 version you purchased.

 

[ElectricIAC]

“Who’s car is it anyway?”

 

[Knightshade]

“Who’s car is it anyway?”

The car is yours. The software is Teslas.

If you wanna write your own entire car OS and make it run on the hardware you own you'd certainly be free to do so (within the confines of the DMCA, and without any obligation from Tesla to support you doing so)

 

[ElectricIAC]

Boost 50, like other tuning sw packages for cars is more of an app, or appliance than anything else.

Property rights are a very sticky subject and Tesla should tread very lightly. Are folks here really simping for a company that’s worth 10x what it was last year?

 

[TomT]

Then you loose access to all the features that cell connectivity brings to the car. Not worth it!

once you do a mod like this, you should also pull the cell card off the car. Otherwise you risk them disabling the mod.

 

[Knightshade]

Boost 50, like other tuning sw packages for cars is more of an app, or appliance than anything else.

Really?

You know the details, specifically, how boost 50 works and exactly what it's doing?

Because, for example, if it were sending a "this guy paid for the $2000 boost" signal that could easily be theft of services.

See also the hacked satellite TV smart card business... those are just "appliances" right?

Now, to be fair, I think it's much more likely that's the kind of thing their "stage 2" upgrade is doing- telling the car "This guy paid for a P"- it would certainly explain why they have to cut you off entirely from the car talking to Tesla when you get it.


The "value of the company" nonsense in your post suggests it's ok to steal from folks as long as they're doing well financially... which.... uh.... no.

 

[ElectricIAC]

It’s not theft because someone who buys this wouldn’t have bought a more restrictive form of it from Tesla. From the site apparently and Rich’s description it’s more than just “go fast”

 

[Knightshade]

It’s not theft because someone who buys this wouldn’t have bought a more restrictive form of it from Tesla. From the site apparently and Rich’s description it’s more than just “go fast”

Of course the site also originally claimed the boost 50 mod was "undetectable" and that didn't turn out to be accurate either

(they've since removed that claim after it turned out just like everyone said from the start except them it's EASILY detectable and sure enough it was.... last I checked the folks who actually make the thing still had that claim up though)

 

[ElectricIAC]

Unrelated: but...Is this theft too?

Tesla Massage Module for Model 3,Y | Intelligentized Auto Parts | Hansshow

They're using parts largely already available on the car: It accelerates wear on those parts.

 

[jjrandorin]

It’s not theft because someone who buys this wouldn’t have bought a more restrictive form of it from Tesla. From the site apparently and Rich’s description it’s more than just “go fast”

Rofl....

"its not theft because they wouldnt have bought the original anyway"?

So someone could walk into your garage and steal your car and its not theft because "they couldnt afford / wouldnt have bought it anyway"? Do you really believe this or are just playing devils advocate or something?

 

[ElectricIAC]

Rofl....

"its not theft because they wouldnt have bought the original anyway"?

So someone could walk into your garage and steal your car and its not theft because "they couldnt afford / wouldnt have bought it anyway"? Do you really believe this or are just playing devils advocate or something?

Mostly column b. But if one wants to argue specifics....This isn't the same exact thing as Tesla's performance bump for $2K. It has added functionality which makes it different even if the main event is similar.

If anything: Tesla should embrace this and add functionality to their version.

As for my car? Go for it, I'm covered.
I love shopping and can have a Y/X to replace it lickety split should that happen.

 

[MP3Mike]

Unrelated: but...Is this theft too?

Tesla Massage Module for Model 3,Y | Intelligentized Auto Parts | Hansshow

They're using parts largely already available on the car: It accelerates wear on those parts.

No, because they aren't just activating a feature that Tesla created and sells. And as far as wear, that mod would obviously void the warranty on the parts it manipulates.

 

[Knightshade]

Mostly column b. But if one wants to argue specifics....This isn't the same exact thing as Tesla's performance bump for $2K. It has added functionality which makes it different even if the main event is similar.

So if I make a hacked satellite card that can also open beer bottles, that's no longer theft of service and I'm in the clear?

BRILLIANT!

 

[Apprunner]

Mostly column b. But if one wants to argue specifics....This isn't the same exact thing as Tesla's performance bump for $2K. It has added functionality which makes it different even if the main event is similar.

If anything: Tesla should embrace this and add functionality to their version.

As for my car? Go for it, I'm covered.
I love shopping and can have a Y/X to replace it lickety split should that happen.

I think you can do what you want with the car. However, you break your terms of service with Tesla and they aren't obligated to support your car any further in terms of warranty, updates, and or Supercharger services. If you are okay with that, then mod away but others should be aware that those nice updates you are getting are Tesla's property and they have the right to dictate the terms of their service to the customer.

 

[SomeJoe7777]

It’s not theft because someone who buys this wouldn’t have bought a more restrictive form of it from Tesla. From the site apparently and Rich’s description it’s more than just “go fast”

Unrelated: but...Is this theft too?

Tesla Massage Module for Model 3,Y | Intelligentized Auto Parts | Hansshow

They're using parts largely already available on the car: It accelerates wear on those parts.

I don't know if "theft" is the right word. But there is indeed a violation here of your agreement with Tesla. Tesla's cars are software-driven. That software is not owned by you, it is licensed for your use under a very specific (and quite restrictive) license. If you modify the functionality of Tesla's software in any way, you've violated the license agreement. With the violation on record, Tesla indeed does not have to support your vehicle. They can indeed deny warranty if they prove your aftermarket modification caused the problem. e.g. In the case of the back massager, if the air bladder fails within the warranty period, Tesla can deny replacement because you modified it's functionality in a way it was not designed for.

Now, if you want to erase all of the firmware modules in every component in the car and write your own software to control it, then you're not violating Tesla's licensing agreement because you're not using their software. Whether they could deny warranty on hardware components at that point is up for debate.

 

[BlindPass]

The car is yours. The software is Teslas.

If you wanna write your own entire car OS and make it run on the hardware you own you'd certainly be free to do so (within the confines of the DMCA, and without any obligation from Tesla to support you doing so)

A ironic contention, given Tesla’s own “compliance“ in using a Linux based OS.

The confines of a law signed a generation ago for music pirating will eventually be amended as its anti-competition nature is further abused in the IoT era. You may recall there is growing political capital in challenging such practices of Big Tech. DMCA will eventually be in the crosshairs.

Imo it’s reasonable to expect other Tech companies to eventually provide 3rd party management, even if another OS is needed. It’ll start with out-of-warranty cars in which lawyers will be able to persuade that Tesla has abandoned and does not support, and eventually evolve. Tesla’s moat isn’t in controlling the physical equipment, hack shops have been able to do that, it’s the machine that makes the machine.

 

[Knightshade]

A ironic contention, given Tesla’s own “compliance“ in using a Linux based OS.

I mean... not really.

teslamotors/buildroot
teslamotors/linux

That's the open source stuff Tesla has for their system image for AP and the kernel sources for that and the infotainment stuff.

Anybody can use that (within the same GPL terms as Tesla uses such content).

The stuff they build on TOP of that like the actual AP stack, proprietary Nvidia binaries (on the tegra infotainment for example) and other such NON opensource stuff is obviously NOT fair game.

Just because something runs "on linux" doesn't mean anything that runs on it is free or public.

The confines of a law signed a generation ago for music pirating will eventually be amended as its anti-competition nature is further abused in the IoT era. You may recall there is growing political capital in challenging such practices of Big Tech. DMCA will eventually be in the crosshairs.

I think you grossly overestimate the appetite of congress to actually go against the huge $ of folks like Disney or others heavily interested in protecting IP.

They love to have hearing where they get to yell at tech billionaires, but they're not gonna bite the hands that feed them campaign funds.

Imo it’s reasonable to expect other Tech companies to eventually provide 3rd party management, even if another OS is needed.

I don't think so.

It's not like anybody's out there commercializing an alternative OS to run on your iphone or something either.

There's other phone OSes, but on a different HW platform entirely.

It’ll start with out-of-warranty cars in which lawyers will be able to persuade that Tesla has abandoned and does not support,

That'd be difficult since literally every OTA capable Tesla ever made going back to the start in 2012 (discounting salvaged ones) still get OTA updates from Tesla and there's been no suggestion if/when that'd ever stop being true.

But again- there's been over 2 billion iphones sold.

Most of them are out of warranty by now.

Most of them no longer get new OS updates.

Where's all the commercialized alternative OSes to run on the actual iphone HW?

 

[Uncle Paul]

Tesla is simply notifying customers that their vehicle has been hacked, and that they are aware of the modification.

Puts them on notice that any negative effects from the mod is on the owner.

Same thing that the aftermarket suppier states on their own warnings.

Imagine that Tesla will also be hesitant to apply any further updates over that finding as well.