I think you are mixing two separate concepts - continuous deployment and beta/GA. Continuous deployment does not preclude branches to be declared beta or GA.
Tesla clearly distinguishes between beta and GA. For example, there is FSD and FSD beta.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla replacing ultrasonic sensors with Tesla Vision
- Thread starter diplomat33
- Start date
Tesla clearly distinguishes between beta and GA. For example, there is FSD and FSD beta.
whitex
Well-Known Member
I have had AutoPilot on my 2015 and it explicitly has been saying it's in Beta since day one, for every release in the last 8 years. Is is just a long design cycle? Going straight from Beta to EOL?
Out of curiosity, which cars have FSD today which claims to be GA release of all functionality? Or has Tesla redefined what GA means, and could just ship FSD which does nothing more than says "Your car has Full Self Driving" and calls it a delivered GA product?
Last edited:
whitex
Well-Known Member
Tesla definitely abuses OTA. In 2016 they shipped cars without legally required automatic headlights (save on a $10 light sensor), because they claimed the functionality is "coming soon via OTA". It took almost a year from the time they started shipping the cars before the automatic headlights started working (badly at first, as my Model S had its headlights on most of the time day or night for a while). The recently removed parking sensors and claim camera based replacement is coming soon, but it's been 4 months and no sign of a working released software. I don't know whether parking sensors are in fact required on new vehicles in the USA, like the automatic headlights are.
Is Tesla making the industry safer in the long term by pushing the limits of technology to such ridiculous heights that the politicians will have to regulate it?
Looks very likely outcome unless challenged in all markets effected - since each one has it's own approach to what's acceptable and what's not. The concept of what's deemed 'reasonable' can have a significant role - with the biggest question in the case of Tesla being how much unfinished development can you 'sell' as adequate for a purpose / functional, effectively hidden from consumer protection under the banner of 'beta'. Just what is an owner to reasonably expect when buying 'Full Self Driving Capability' that never demonstrates that capability to the satisfaction of regulators?
You'd think they would be if that's what was offered to and purchased by buyer. Unless of course there was some clause in a purchase agreement with words to the effect that 'when you buy from us, we get to decide what you actually get.... sooner or later (by OTA if needs be!)
Last edited:
Again, you are mixing concepts. GA does not necessarily mean “all functionality”. In very broad strokes, GA means that the released functionality is defined and supported. FSD is probably a good example - it is not FSD (I am not even sure what that means anymore) but the subset of released functions is supported. On the other hand, auto wipers are still in “beta”, which means that it is “best effort, not guaranteed”.
You are excused in your confusion though, as it relates to Tesla, because they abuse the concept (hence, my original comment). It is a joke for such basic function like auto wipers to be in “beta” for so many years. I am not intimately familiar with their development rituals or product management but from the outside it looks more like a sorry startup and afterthought than one of the largest in the world - lack of focus, no clearly defined deliverables and milestones, absent QA, lack of design expertise, zero customer feedback - big part of why this 78 pages post sounds like Alcoholics Anonymous meeting…
Last edited:
I cannot believe I am writing this but it seems that we need and will get some regulatory attention here.
Looks very likely outcome unless challenged in all markets effected - since each one has it's own approach to what's acceptable and what's not. The concept of what's deemed 'reasonable' can have a significant role - with the biggest question in the case of Tesla being how much unfinished development can you 'sell' as adequate for a purpose / functional, effectively hidden from consumer protection under the banner of 'beta'. Just what is an owner to reasonably expect when buying 'Full Self Driving Capability' that never demonstrates that capability to the satisfaction of regulators?
You'd think they would be if that's what was offered to and purchased by buyer. Unless of course there was some clause in a purchase agreement with words to the effect that 'when you buy from us, we get to decide what you actually get.... sooner or later (by OTA if needs be!)
Completely agree re: FSD. I think it will have different functionality for different models and will not necessarily meet customer expectations because the promise was so vague to begin with. It is not wise to buy a product based on future expectations - regardless if it is a car, phone, or something else. Now, with Tesla we have the additional issue of removing features that were available at the time of purchase, aka “bait and switch”. We’ll see how that will work itself through the legal system.
Well, it's a stretch to determine a definitition for FSD.... especially when by any normal use of terms FSD would be more complete than FSD-Beta. (purely from a linguistic perspective). Then there is the issue of if anything called FSD has ever made it out of beta by Tesla's reckoning. I believe not. FSD would seem to be a straight forward enough term that has a spec and that could be delivered. In reality, that's far from the case.... as you say, what even is FSD as of today?
I'd agree that FSD (whatever that is / was) had / has a beta label attached, but I don't recall 'Full Self Driving Capability' ever being in 'beta'. This feels like trying to get out of quicksand! Trying to make sense of senseless words that have already been pulled every which way is not really producing clarity - unsurprisingly!
Last edited:
Exactly! They hide behind “beta” designation to excuse sloppy development/product management. Imagine if Google Search was still in “beta” 
Funny you should bring up Google. They famously had GMail in beta for over 5 years. It wasn't until they were trying to court businesses to compete against Microsoft that they exited beta, as companies don't usually invest in beta software. As for Google's official reason for leaving beta:Exactly! They hide behind “beta” designation to excuse sloppy development/product management. Imagine if Google Search was still in “beta”
“Obviously we haven’t had a consistent set of policies or definitions around beta,” Matthew Glotzbach, a director of product management at Google, said in an interview. Mr. Glotzbach said that different teams at Google had different criteria for what beta meant, and that Google felt a need to standardize those. “It was time to address the issue and bring the products out of beta,” he said.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
AFAIK automatic headlights are not a legal requirement. If it was, Tesla wouldn't have even been able to sell the car off the lot.
From a quick search:
Do daytime running lights make cars less safe?
Car lighting tech is dangerously halfway to where it should be.
www.google.com
sleepydoc
Well-Known Member
Google also has a history of developing then dropping projects. You're right, though - no company is going to use a beta platform. Even if Google's beta was more functional than Microsoft's non-beta software!
As for Tesla, I agree with a lot of what's been said here. It seems like they hide behind 'beta' to excuse poorly functioning features like adaptive cruise that every other carmaker has had out for years. They also advertise and tout features that are beta. The real issue is how long they leave things in beta. Many 'features' have been in beta for 5-10 years. Given the average length of car ownership in the U.S. is less than 5 that means they never actually deliver on their promise.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
There's a difference between marketing "Beta" (things labeled as "Beta" in UI and manual) and actual engineering beta (them actually running a beta test program like they did with the Early Access Program).Exactly! They hide behind “beta” designation to excuse sloppy development/product management. Imagine if Google Search was still in “beta”
The marketing "Beta" label does not add any sort of legal protection to Tesla. You can see when people sued Tesla for AP being late, it was not used as a legal argument. It's the various disclaimers in the manual that does, and the same disclaimers exist for other manufacturers, even if they don't use the "Beta" label.
What do you guys mean when you say "marketing" or "market the car"? To my knowledge, Tesla has never marketed their cars. No commercials, no billboards, no ads, no web banners, nothing. They have no PR department, no marketing department. It's all word of mouth from other owners.
I admit I'm ignorant of other countries, so perhaps they do market their cars in China or European countries.
I admit I'm ignorant of other countries, so perhaps they do market their cars in China or European countries.
That may well be true. But it does presumably add something, otherwise why does Tesla bother declaring features to still be 'beta'? Unless from a marketing perspective 'beta' suggests it will be soon pass final engineering release status - which sounds more palatable than 'this functionally incomplete product may not perform consistently or as expected and we have no obligation to improve its performance'.
Is there any difference between a product in 'beta' and a 'general release' product sold with extensive disclaimers? Is 'beta' a term that has a substantially different meaning as a marketing term vs use in an engineering / product development context?
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
You are confusing "marketing" with "advertising", which is only a subset of marketing.
There are a ton of things Tesla does in the US that falls squarely under marketing, just off the top of my head:
-Referral program
-Test drive tour
-Email promotion of new products
-quarter end perks for taking delivery
-the naming of products and graphics on their website to attract customers
-attending car shows like LA car show (I got interested in Tesla because of seeing a Roadster at the SF auto show, although that was before Elon took over)
-Tesla events for major announcements (like the Cyber Rodeo)
-Merch on their store (like the hats, shirts, other branded items)
-Gift for reservations (I got a poster for my original Model 3 reservation, others have gotten things like diecast models).
-Social Media (Tesla's Youtube, Twitter, Instagram)
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
This is how Elon described it back when he introduced the marketing term (he said explicitly he was not using it like the software development term):
What Does Tesla Autopilot "Beta" Mean?
He also mentioned at minimum 1 billion miles of real world testing, but I don't think that really applies anymore.
Today the term basically just describes any feature that Tesla expects to continually make significant changes to throughout the vehicle ownership. Those of us following or using Teslas have long been desensitized to this, but keep in mind for a vast majority of buyers, they are used to buying a car and the features in the car working pretty much exactly the same as when they bought it, whether it is 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years down the line. This is very much not the case with Tesla, especially with features with the "BETA" label on them.
The ones they don't label with BETA usually are either very simple toggles where significant changes would not be possible, or they are under some standard regulatory requirement or standardized testing (like the FCW, AEB etc) so would be significantly limited in the changes allowed.
Last edited:
Call me old fashioned..... but when you're spending anywhere from 50k to 100k + on a car, there should be a pretty solid core of stuff that just works and continues working.
I don't recall Elon's tweet explaining his take on the use of 'Beta' term. Part of me sincerely wants to breath a deep sigh of relief based on your post (@stopcrazypp) and say 'phew, that all makes sense.' But even the engineer in me (who gets at least some of what it takes to tread in unchartered territory) is very much perplexed by the apparent reality distortion field that surrounds so much that makes up the Tesla Experience.
Similar threads
