They said "you can't stay on 7.0 forever. .."

[stopcrazypp]

They seek your permission first, but if they only offer you a patch which along with fixing the problem simultaneously breaks an unrelated feature that you own, then you obviously refuse the bogus patch and demand that they offer a patch that fulfills their obligation to fix the problem under warranty while not violating your right to your own property by breaking unrelated features that you own!

I make the point because in the latter description (where you refuse the patch and make a demand they release an independent one), the manufacturer isn't obligated to do anything further for you contractually, nor have they violated your rights.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Ok, fine, change the hypothetical to a choice between:

a) Autopilot working on the roads that you actually drive, but no DVD player.
b) Add a Navigation DVD player and you get to read about how cool Autopilot is for everybody else, but you can't use it yourself.

It's more like autopilot limiting speeds on roads he drives and he claims speed limit detection is poor under 7.0, although it might have improved already in the latest version. It's not like the feature completely doesn't work in those roads, which was what may be implied above.

 

[sillydriver]

I make the point because in the latter description (where you refuse the patch and make a demand they release an independent one), the manufacturer isn't obligated to do anything further for you contractually, nor have they violated your rights.

And I believe the warranty contractually obligates them to fix the problem without breaking unrelated functionality owned by the customer.

I think that whether what you say is true, or what I say is true, can only be determined by the outcome of litigation. I truly hope it never comes to this, and expect it won't, even though it would be interesting to see whose legal theory is correct, yours or mine. I, for one, apply Tesla's updates to my car and am a happy owner of my P85DL, despite my thinking that the restrictions in 7.1 are a bad idea.

 

[stopcrazypp]

And I believe the warranty contractually obligates them to fix the problem without breaking unrelated functionality owned by the customer.

I think that whether what you say is true, or what I say is true, can only be determined by the outcome of litigation. I truly hope it never comes to this, and expect it won't, even though it would be interesting to see whose legal theory is correct, yours or mine. I, for one, apply Tesla's updates to my car and am a happy owner of my P85DL, despite my thinking that the restrictions in 7.1 are a bad idea.

People claim that, but so far absolutely nothing has been posted either from Tesla's warranty nor from law that supports that argument. The burden of proof is on the person making that claim (it would be the same in a lawsuit against Tesla). Again, if such a standard was held, software development would be exponentially difficult (every single patch for example released on Android or iOS would have to be independent of a general update).

 

[qwk]

I have never owned any other vehicle other than a Tesla, which had features I bought the vehicle with, taken away remotely with a software "upgrade". The rest is just feel good

Hah. You should read the EULAs for those manufacturers. You think Tesla is heavy handed?

Just one of many examples: GM, Ford and Others say you don't own your car, you just license it I don't think the dealerships are going to help you here.

lip service....

 

[qwk]

By the way, the probability of a lawsuit over things like this is tiny, but you can bet that sales lost due to shady business practices is huge.

Tesla doesn't have a demand problem because they are a great company to deal with....

 

[gpetti]

i dipped out of this thread because I had enough of listening to the topic (I've heard this in person a couple of times). I also suspect that there is no amount of arguing that will change green1's opinion on this (or mine for that matter); however, having dipped back in I just want to call out one particular point. Green1 has asserted that the speed limit detection is correct less that 50% of the time where he lives (Calgary as do I). Seriously? I was driving to the airport the other day and having recently read this statement, I started to wonder how he could even remotely justify this stat. Is he saying that every second sign is inaccurately recognized? Or every second road has all the road signs ignored or misrecognized? On my drive to the airport (on a road that is very appropriate for AP) it successfully identified every sign on a 40 minute drive. You could pass hundreds of signs in a day and to suggest that half of them were wrong is ludicrous. In my experience (and the experience of every other Calgary driver I've talked to) it occasionally misses a sign, it doesn't do well with school zones (they don't give a new speed when they end - though these are areas where one probably shouldn't be using AP), some construction signs cause issues, and occasionally it will see a sign from an exit that is angled in a way that the car thinks it is on the main road. If I were to pull a number out of thin air, it would be about 1-5% error and on roads where AP is appropriate less than that. The one notable exception that green1 oft mentions is a highway in our neighbouring province called the coquihalla where the car doesn't seem to recognize 120 Kph speed signs and typically assumes 110. We live several hundred Kms from this highway so I doubt he is on this more than a couple of times a year. If this is the example being used then speed sign recognition is wrong nearly 100% of the time. Personally I consider it an anomaly and in any case it usually allows me to go 120 Kph (110 + 10) which is fine with me, otherwise I put my foot down a bit. I think green1 is exaggerating this stat dramatically to escalate the overall importance of his complaint. If he is literally having every second sign be misread then there is definitely something wrong with his car.

 

[Krugerrand]

If he is literally having every second sign be misread then there is definitely something wrong with his car.

Maybe an update would resolve this. (Too soon?)

 

[beeeerock]

The one notable exception that green1 oft mentions is a highway in our neighbouring province called the coquihalla where the car doesn't seem to recognize 120 Kph speed signs and typically assumes 110. We live several hundred Kms from this highway so I doubt he is on this more than a couple of times a year.

I drive this highway regularly as it's literally out my front door. It's divided from end to end and I have so far been able to set my speed with AP active at pretty much whatever I want, whether the car correctly identifies the speed zones or not... worst case, it decided I was in a 20 km/h zone at one point instead of 120. Other places, 100, 110 were assumed in spite of the whole 200 km being posted at 120.

In short, I don't think I've 'lost' anything by allowing my car to do all the upgrades.

 

[3s-a-charm]

I can validate how significantly improved the speed sign recognition is - I was just highway driving and noticed how amazing it was that the car didn't pick up "suggested/warning" signs which look identical but don't have "MAXIMUM" above the speed. Incredible that it skips those signs and only detects actual speed signs.

The only update I wish was better is the undivided hwy speed restrictions.

 

[Electroman]

Se folks are never satisfied and are whiny. Often on imagined and exaggerated claims

 

[Nappe]

I also find the speed-limit reading mostly accurate in Calgary, and with so much road construction, I'm glad that the car takes the initiative to slow down.

In response to beeeerock, on undivided roads in BC, I would guess that 10% or so get the speed too low—and 0% where they use the new variable-speed LED signs. In these cases, I prefer to manage the speed with my foot and let the car steer, because it strikes me as the easier of the two jobs that the car and I share.

 

[sillydriver]

And I believe the warranty contractually obligates them to fix the problem without breaking unrelated functionality owned by the customer.

I think that whether what you say is true, or what I say is true, can only be determined by the outcome of litigation. I truly hope it never comes to this, and expect it won't, even though it would be interesting to see whose legal theory is correct, yours or mine. I, for one, apply Tesla's updates to my car and am a happy owner of my P85DL, despite my thinking that the restrictions in 7.1 are a bad idea.

People claim that, but so far absolutely nothing has been posted either from Tesla's warranty nor from law that supports that argument. The burden of proof is on the person making that claim (it would be the same in a lawsuit against Tesla). Again, if such a standard was held, software development would be exponentially difficult (every single patch for example released on Android or iOS would have to be independent of a general update).

I believe the reason why it seems my argument is not supported by precident is that in the other cases like Android or IOS, which you site, the software developer only licenses software functionality through a EULA which retains ownership in the developer's hands. Then, as I have said in earlier posts, my argument is completely defused. Under the usual EULA, the developer is not obligated not to break unrelated functionality becasue it is they, not the customer, who owns that functionality. But as far as I can see, Tesla did not impose such a EULA when we bought our cars. If someone can post/show that we in fact did agree to a EULA and I somehow missed it, then my argument does not apply to Tesla and your conclusion is right with respect to Tesla. Otherwise, it's a matter of which theory prevails in litigation (which as I said, I hope never occurs). I believe the fact that my theory is a plausible one is one reason why EULAs are imposed by the great majority of software developers: such EULAs get them off this potential hook.

 

[rxlawdude]

Guys, this really distills down to one issue: As a matter of public policy, which takes precedence: safety or driver convenience?

Anyone trying to sue Tesla because they are on a backlevel version where the owner merely doesn't like SOME of the newer features will most likely be unsuccessful, if nothing else because of the public policy precedence favoring safety improvements.

 

[green1]

The 50% or less claim is based on the roads I drive. I will not claim that @gpetti or anyone else drives the same roads I do just because they live in the same city.
The claim is also by time spent on the roads, not by number of roads. Every time I have listed a location where the speed limit is not correctly identified, no other Tesla driver, nor Tesla themselves, have been able to tell me that the system should work properly in that location.
I stand by my statement.

 

[beeeerock]

In response to beeeerock, on undivided roads in BC, I would guess that 10% or so get the speed too low—and 0% where they use the new variable-speed LED signs. In these cases, I prefer to manage the speed with my foot and let the car steer, because it strikes me as the easier of the two jobs that the car and I share.

In fairness, the provincial government has been messing with speed limits lately. Plenty of roads have changed (mostly going up). Given Tesla appears to use the Garmin canned information as the primary source for speed limits, the annual updates won't pick up all of the changes immediately. But I haven't actually noticed accuracy issues except on the Coquihalla. The variable speed signs will be interesting. However, I've so far seen them only on divided highways. And if they are indicating a lower speed, that means the conditions are lousy and it would likely be dangerous to use AP or even TACC at that point.

 

[ccharleb]

I'm near Montreal (Canada) and on our highways, we have two speed signs: MAX 100 km/h and MIN 60 km/h. Many times, the car choose 60 as the speed limit... and it's not always reacting the same way when passing beside the same signs at a specific location.

 

[Drivin]

Guys, this really distills down to one issue: As a matter of public policy, which takes precedence: safety or driver convenience?

Anyone trying to sue Tesla because they are on a backlevel version where the owner merely doesn't like SOME of the newer features will most likely be unsuccessful, if nothing else because of the public policy precedence favoring safety improvements.

No, the issue is whether this was agreed to when you bought the car. I haven't read the TOS lately, but are you required to install updates?

If they are going to claim some public safety issue, then they separate releases based on proven improvements in safety vs. feature changes.

Other manufacturers have safety updates - are people legally required to go to the dealer for those?

 

[rxlawdude]

No, the issue is whether this was agreed to when you bought the car. I haven't read the TOS lately, but are you required to install updates?

If they are going to claim some public safety issue, then they separate releases based on proven improvements in safety vs. feature changes.

Other manufacturers have safety updates - are people legally required to go to the dealer for those?

Oy. I'm done with this thread.
Don't want to update? Woe to you if you get in a crash and the other party discovers a safety related update you refused that MAY have reduced the likelihood or severity.