-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
The vehicles were were advertised as having the ability to get OTA updates. All vehicles have that ability. No "promise" was made regarding OTA updates but even if there was a promise made, never was it said all cars were entitled to get the same updates as others.
Regardless, anyone with any knowledge of the legal system knows that the merit of one's argument may not even be a consideration, hence the need for anti-SLAPP legislation. For every one Erin Brockovich, thousands have been silenced and bankrupted by the cost of litigation, regardless of the merits of their cases.
The deepest pockets rule the courts. (Which is why I chuckle to myself when I see the threats of litigation made against Tesla in this thread.)
No one is disputing his ownership of the car, it is still his car, fully functional.
I also agree that it might be beneficial if upgrades are done by owner's selection, not pushed by the manufacturer. That said, for particular patches and upgrades the manufacturer may have a choice to refuse or reduce further service if people stay too far behind on some critical upgrades. It is quite difficult and incorrect to have a black -white view on complex issues.
In this specific case, someone at Tesla who is empowered to do so made a decision to attempt a pushed downgrade, most likely in response to being publicly exposed and in fear of further exposure. That was that person's choice. The op is free to respond as he sees fit.
My view is that the op will get his upgrade as soon as it is sanitized for his perusal.
deonb
Active Member
That would only be a true counter-argument if there was no way you would have ever bought it under any circumstances.*
But if that was the case, then the rise of Napster would have done nothing to the music industry.
Anytime you pirate something that you would have purchased if you could not pirate it, it becomes a direct loss. People size their investments based on the estimated size of the market. If enough of that market feels entitled to steal the product, that investment is lost. And it's not from some faceless giant - that investment ultimately came from little old ladies with 401k's that invested in a mutual fund.
Sure, a VC will account for a certain level of piracy when they plan their investment, in the same way that Macys plan for a certain amount of theft and Visa plans for a certain amount of fraud. That doesn't make it right.
* I have somewhat more sympathy for things that people pirate that's not for sale. The industry needs to catch up with the times and stop trying to Zone the world.
Krugerrand
Meow
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since that's now how it works with Tesla cars it means what you want is irrelevant.
Classic blame the other party when someone oversteps boundaries. Don't leave anything of value in your locked car, under the seat and out of sight because that's just begging for someone to break into the car and go searching for that thing of value they didn't even know was there in the first place. Pretty simple, really.
hacking any computer you have physical access to is rather trivial. I would be impressed if wk could pull of a remote hack. we actually need white hats working on remote hacks.
The 100 pack is an open secret for anyone living in the Bay Area that knows a couple Tesla engineers. This is not top secret at this point. The 100 pack has been under test for over a year.
If wk wants to continue to threaten Tesla they will simply void the warranty and offer a buy back. They will be happy to pay 100% original cost, but in that scenario I'm sure wk will turn down the offer and keep the voided car; pretending to be a hero.
The 100 pack is an open secret for anyone living in the Bay Area that knows a couple Tesla engineers. This is not top secret at this point. The 100 pack has been under test for over a year.
If wk wants to continue to threaten Tesla they will simply void the warranty and offer a buy back. They will be happy to pay 100% original cost, but in that scenario I'm sure wk will turn down the offer and keep the voided car; pretending to be a hero.
Last edited:
MarkS22
Member
What happened is quite common in other industries. For example, tech sites look at the latest Apple firmware and try to find clues (Source) (Alternate Source) of upcoming hardware. It's common practice and Tesla's engineers are--one would assume--well aware of it. I use Apple as an example because it's another company that makes a great effort to control information flow on new products.
There is no particular inside knowledge here. We have no details on exactly WHEN a P100D will arrive. In September 2015, Musk publicly stated said that Tesla could increase the range of the Model S to over 600 miles within a year or two, immediately after the release of the 90. We know there will be constant range increases. It's public information.
We don't know if the pack will have the same weight or increased weight, so we can't calculate range. We don't know if it'll be out at the launch of Model 3 or later this fall. Anyone following the Model S would know that a new pack would be expected eventually.
Personally and intentionally avoiding IP law, I think it would be different if information released contained completely new and unexpected information. But to make such a big deal over another battery size? As a shareholder myself, I'd prefer the eminent P90D owners hold off a few weeks or months and purchase a (likely) premium priced P100D. We know Tesla loves pushing people to the higher end models to make bigger margins.
In the end of the day, if data inside the firmware could damage the business, it shouldn't be released or they should hide it better (e.g. encryption). Either they don't particularly care, or they now have valuable feedback on managing their firmware secrecy. Best of all, it happened with a benign leak, considering Tesla's very public comments on battery improvements.
I also think we should refrain from assuming or suggesting any actions that have occurred were malicious by either side. We can disagree with how and what we would've done, but let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until we have evidence and not speculation.
There is no particular inside knowledge here. We have no details on exactly WHEN a P100D will arrive. In September 2015, Musk publicly stated said that Tesla could increase the range of the Model S to over 600 miles within a year or two, immediately after the release of the 90. We know there will be constant range increases. It's public information.
We don't know if the pack will have the same weight or increased weight, so we can't calculate range. We don't know if it'll be out at the launch of Model 3 or later this fall. Anyone following the Model S would know that a new pack would be expected eventually.
Personally and intentionally avoiding IP law, I think it would be different if information released contained completely new and unexpected information. But to make such a big deal over another battery size? As a shareholder myself, I'd prefer the eminent P90D owners hold off a few weeks or months and purchase a (likely) premium priced P100D. We know Tesla loves pushing people to the higher end models to make bigger margins.
In the end of the day, if data inside the firmware could damage the business, it shouldn't be released or they should hide it better (e.g. encryption). Either they don't particularly care, or they now have valuable feedback on managing their firmware secrecy. Best of all, it happened with a benign leak, considering Tesla's very public comments on battery improvements.
I also think we should refrain from assuming or suggesting any actions that have occurred were malicious by either side. We can disagree with how and what we would've done, but let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt until we have evidence and not speculation.
Wow, this thread is filled with lots of assumptions and very little facts, but that's fairly typical on this forum.
No one except Tesla knows the intent, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was no intent. After all these years of guessing and speculating, no one really knows the upgrade cycle for firmware.
Tesla has been updating and changing things as necessary. I guess we'll see what happens.
wk - please keep the hacking going as it's great to see what you've been doing.
But I don't necessarily think Tesla is out to get you.
No one except Tesla knows the intent, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was no intent. After all these years of guessing and speculating, no one really knows the upgrade cycle for firmware.
Tesla has been updating and changing things as necessary. I guess we'll see what happens.
wk - please keep the hacking going as it's great to see what you've been doing.
But I don't necessarily think Tesla is out to get you.
Last edited:
MikeBur
ManualPilot
+1
In terms of facts, to summarize the way I see/saw events:
1) wk had Eureka moment seeing new bitmap image in firmware. Thought this was imminent and wanted it noted publicly that he discovered this via tweet to EM/TM. Singular word posted as sha256 hash to "protect surprise", though unintentionally was weak protection. Unsurprisingly, due to length restrictions, the tweet language used was ambiguous and could have been interpreted as threatening leaks, rather than actual intent.
2) wk noted within few hours that pending update for his car was removed and replaced with FW update for much earlier release. Although solicited, no other owners had same attempted rollback/downgrade of firmware leading to assertion this was a targeted action by TM
3) wk receives tweet reply be EM stating he did not make this decision
4) wk car, once again, receives update request to latest version.
I believe Jason was very restrained and managed to hold back the perfectly natural reaction. I honestly don't know if, though would hope, I could have.
There may be additional color and depth here, though I believe this is reasonably accurate enough. I don't believe there's step 5 yet. Jason?
also, mods any chance to 'fork off' all the beer/IP conversation please? Just because everyone says it's OT, doesn't mean it's then ok to say "but..." and then do it anyway, surely?
I would like to point out that oftentimes legal protections on software and scrutiny can be used by a company for nefarious purposes.
Good current example would be VW Dieselgate. My simplistic understanding is that they used legal protections for their software code to prevent scrutiny of their emissions cheating shenanigans. I cannot find the article that commented about it, but it was one of the early ones. Not exactly relevant here (since all wk did was show Elon that he knew his secret), but I can only assume that the emissions damage done by VW would have been mitigated by many years, and lives, if someone like wk was looking into their code.
Not to imply Tesla is covering up their own Dieselgate....(OMG there's an ICE in there! How'd they hide that?)
So as an owner and an investor I am glad he (and probably others) are looking into Tesla's code.
Good current example would be VW Dieselgate. My simplistic understanding is that they used legal protections for their software code to prevent scrutiny of their emissions cheating shenanigans. I cannot find the article that commented about it, but it was one of the early ones. Not exactly relevant here (since all wk did was show Elon that he knew his secret), but I can only assume that the emissions damage done by VW would have been mitigated by many years, and lives, if someone like wk was looking into their code.
Not to imply Tesla is covering up their own Dieselgate....(OMG there's an ICE in there! How'd they hide that?)
So as an owner and an investor I am glad he (and probably others) are looking into Tesla's code.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Where's the other forum that's filled with lots of facts and very little assumptions?
And after you take that shot at this forum you go on to speculate as to Tesla's intention. Pot meet kettle.
MikeBur
ManualPilot
via "The Google", during an interview with Danish press during European factory opening
600-Mile Range Tesla | Specs, News, Rumors | Digital Trends
I believe I said, I think there is no intention. I guess you can spin that to say I'm saying there is an intention, if no intention is an intention. Sure just seems like people keep reading into things. We've seen it over and over many people were quick to say Tesla was out to screw the customer, but time and time again they've shown differently. I hope that's the case, but as I said, we'll see.
So sure, call me the pot.
Sure just seems like people keep reading into things. We've seen it over and over many people were quick to say Tesla was out to screw the customer, but time and time again they've shown differently. I hope that's the case, but as I said, we'll see.So sure, call me the pot.
MarkS22
Member
Elon Musk Hints At 50 Percent More Range For Tesla Model S: Video
Note that he could mean under optimum conditions, but the point still applies.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Ha! I'm certain you're a very nice shinny pot without any soot. It's just that all most of us have around here is speculation (except wk and Tesla). And besides, it's fun to speculate and make assumptions.
Never said no soot. And yes it's fun to speculate, but when it turns into: Tesla screwed me intentionally, I'm going to screw them back because I know exactly what they were trying to do or I'm calling my lawyer because I know Tesla did X on purpose.... that's when it gets a little much. Always 3 sides to a story....
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
I think we should all let Elon set the tone on this one, and call it a day. His tweet was pretty hard to interpret wrong.
satoshi
Electrical Engineer
To all the "copying software is not the same as stealing a beer" folks:
What is your stance of say some chinese company, buying a Model S and designing and selling an exact replica, made in "copy exactly" style, including the content of flash chips?
They didn't take anything material from tesla, they payed for a product and "did what they wanted with something they payed for".
Why is copying SW Ok, and copying material product not OK?:
What is your stance of say some chinese company, buying a Model S and designing and selling an exact replica, made in "copy exactly" style, including the content of flash chips?
They didn't take anything material from tesla, they payed for a product and "did what they wanted with something they payed for".
Why is copying SW Ok, and copying material product not OK?:
Similar threads
