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

[diamond.g]

Out of curiosity, with respect to the Google Maps API issue, has anyone seen the same problem with Audi A4's? They have that nice IC with Google Maps on it, and would/should of had the same issue right?

 

[green1]

Considering that there are likely millions of websites using google maps API (including several of my own), and I have yet to see any broken due to the supposed change, I would certainly not expect that Audi would have been affected either.

Whatever this is, it seems to be Tesla specific in it's effect.

 

[diamond.g]

Considering that there are likely millions of websites using google maps API (including several of my own), and I have yet to see any broken due to the supposed change, I would certainly not expect that Audi would have been affected either.

Whatever this is, it seems to be Tesla specific in it's effect.

Ah. I did find a blurb that indicates they can update the service without notifying you remotely. But I am not sure if the car talks to Google directly or if it gets translated though Audis servers.

https://www.audiusa.com/content/dam..._Audi_Connect/Audi_connect_ToS_Jan_4_2016.pdf

Can't say for sure if the ToS is legally binding, though they did throw in the arbitration clause...

Really dumb of Tesla to not have the same. Especially for a service they may try to Monitize with the Model 3.

EDIT: Does the center screen not display a map at all with the Google API hosed? Kind of worrying they don't provide a fall back (offline map).

 

[stopcrazypp]

Car definitely uses Google's Voice recognition API...

#!/bin/bash

gst-launch -v                                           \
    alsasrc num-buffers=600 device=tdm1_slot_12_rec \!  \
    audio/x-raw-int,rate=8000,channels=1,width=16 \!    \
    amrnbenc \!                                         \
    filesink location=/tmp/vrcap.amr

curl                                                                                            \
    "http://www.google.com/speech-api/v1/recognize?lang=en-us&client=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"       \
    --header "Content-Type: audio/amr; rate=8000"                                               \
    --data-binary @/tmp/vrcap.amr                                                               \
    -o /tmp/vrcap.dat

sed -e 's/.*utterance":"\([^"]*\).*/\1/' </tmp/vrcap.dat >/tmp/vrcap.txt

Edit: This script is actually depreciated (Google disabled API v1 at some point), and has since been incorporated into the car software with Google's latest API... but still uses Google.

Also, this has happened before. In April 2013 a backward-incompatible change was made to the Google Voice API, causing it to not work with Tesla firmware 4.2 and earlier (voice commands were a new feature in 4.0). The fix was apparently in 4.4 or later, based on the dates of the releases in the firmware wiki.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion. I wasn't about to stick my head out there with blind speculation, but I initially did suspect this is related to changes to the Google speech API. Given there was a client side update after the change to API v2 (meaning the client is directly affected by any changes Google may make to its API), I suspect this may be related to Google's new cloud service that was launched a few months ago:
Google opens access to its speech recognition API, going head to head with Nuance

 

[green1]

There is no fallback on the centre screen, however there do appear to be some cached areas of the map (the area around my house for example still displays, but only at certain zoom levels.

There are however 2 different mapping systems in the car, and the onboard navigation continues to work properly displaying the usual mapping on the dash. It even draws the route line on the centre screen, only without the map behind it.

 

[diamond.g]

There is no fallback on the centre screen, however there do appear to be some cached areas of the map (the area around my house for example still displays, but only at certain zoom levels.

There are however 2 different mapping systems in the car, and the onboard navigation continues to work properly displaying the usual mapping on the dash. It even draws the route line on the centre screen, only without the map behind it.

That seems really incomplete.

 

[green1]

That seems really incomplete.

I hesitate to say so with the overall tone of this thread to start with, but "really incomplete" describes a lot of Tesla software.

 

[msnow]

I hesitate to say so with the overall tone of this thread to start with, but "really incomplete" describes a lot of Tesla software.

What's funny is that people over at the 7.1 thread are driving miles and miles to get to a Tesla geofence just to trigger the latest and presumably greatest update and here you and a few others are trying so hard to avoid it. It's such a dichotomy of positions. I don't mean this to cast any doubt on your view as its been consistent for as long as I've known you. It's just such a striking difference.

 

[Max*]

What's funny is that people over at the 7.1 thread are driving miles and miles to get to a Tesla geofence just to trigger the latest and presumably greatest update and here you and a few others are trying so hard to avoid it.

Is there anything good in the update?

And what is this Tesla geofence that you're talking about?

 

[CuriousG]

Is there anything good in the update?

And what is this Tesla geofence that you're talking about?

Theory is if you're within a particular Tesla Service Center geofenced area, you will get a firmware update assuming it is available for your VIN.

Tesla Service Center Geofences

Based on information said here:
Firmware 7.1
and
Firmware 7.1

 

[MP3Mike]

And what is this Tesla geofence that you're talking about?

Tesla has geo-fenced Tesla sites, Stores/Service Centers/etc., when you car drives into one of these areas it sends a notification to the Tesla servers, which then check to see if your car is eligible for a firmware update. If it is the update is started.

People are assuming this is for a couple of reasons:

• Keep test drive vehicles at stores on the most current version.
• Eliminate service personnel time applying the latest update when a car is in for service. (No need to hookup/download firmware, just click the button and walk away.)

 

[msnow]

Is there anything good in the update?

And what is this Tesla geofence that you're talking about?

I haven't noticed anything yet but here is the info from @Ingineer on what modules were updated in 2.30.33 and which facilities are geofenced. If you visit one of these locations momentarily it will trigger a priority to the mothership which in turn will send you an update if one is available for your car.

Firmware 7.1

Firmware 7.1

 

[Max*]

Cool thanks, I'm not in a rush to get a random bug patch. It'll come whenever it comes. Now if you were to tell me that they fixed nav, or added some cool features, I might make my way over to the Tesla store

Anyways, sorry for hijacking green1.

 

[Stoneymonster]

If I were Tesla (and I'm not) I would not want to support a handful of people on a deprecated and diverging branch. You complain about incomplete software? This is how you get it, by tasking engineers with busy work that costs them days. So, if Tesla won't do that, and I hope they don't, how else could they make you whole? Seems like a one-time refund of some portion of the AP fee would be a no-brainer for them.

 

[green1]

The easy way to make me whole would be to upgrade me to the latest version, then go in to developer mode and uncheck the boxes for the limitations that they added.
Other ways they could make me whole include delivering to everyone what was promised at the AP unveil event (which I've long since given up hoping for) which was "hands free on-ramp to off-ramp" driving including automatic speed adjustments (up and down), and implementing an actual process for dealing with mistaken speed limit recognition (I'm ok with it being wrong occasionally, I'm not ok with it being wrong repeatedly in the same place with no way of getting it fixed)

They could remove the limits for everyone, as I firmly believe they had no legal right to implement them in the first place on anyone who had already purchased the car (new purchasers since that firmware update are a different story, but it's ok if they're pleasantly surprised when the car can suddenly do more)

There are really quite a few ways they could fix this.

But the biggest takeaway is that they got themselves in to this mess in the first place by tying necessary updates to feature removals. It's not my job to fix their mistake for them, it's up to them to live with the decision they have made. No matter how inconvenient it is for them. I owe them nothing, but they have a contractual obligation to me.

 

[WannabeOwner]

Whatever this is, it seems to be Tesla specific in it's effect

IME it can happen like this (sorry if this is Granny + Sucking Eggs):

I build an API interface. I am confident it is "just like the DOCs say it should be"

I test it. Once it is all working just fine I "deploy it".

Then the Vendor updates something, and only then do I discover that I didn't actually implement it the way the Vendor intended. The DOCs were wrong, or my interpretation of the DOCs was wrong, or I just plain got it wrong ... but I also got lucky that in all the test use-cases it worked (and presumably no Customer complaints, at that time, either).

So now it is bust ... so I set about fixing it and, let's assume, I am only bothering to do that in my latest Patch-Release.

So could be Tesla-only, and Audi et al are not effected.

 

[green1]

IME it can happen like this (sorry if this is Granny + Sucking Eggs):

I build an API interface. I am confident it is "just like the DOCs say it should be"

I test it. Once it is all working just fine I "deploy it".

Then the Vendor updates something, and only then do I discover that I didn't actually implement it the way the Vendor intended. The DOCs were wrong, or my interpretation of the DOCs was wrong, or I just plain got it wrong ... but I also got lucky that in all the test use-cases it worked (and presumably no Customer complaints, at that time, either).

So now it is bust ... so I set about fixing it and, let's assume, I am only bothering to do that in my latest Patch-Release.

So could be Tesla-only, and Audi et al are not effected.

I agree fully that this is possible, even likely. That doesn't absolve Tesla of their obligations to not remove or limit previously delivered functionality on my vehicle when they fix it.

Tesla's mistake is not in deploying software updates to fix things, or in relying on 3rd party APIs which can change. Their mistake was in tying those same fixes to feature removals.

If the car was out of warranty, then it might be my problem rather than theirs, but the warranty said they'll repair what breaks (with no exclusion for API calls). Meanwhile nothing I signed at any time in the purchasing process or since has given Tesla the right to remove or limit any functionality on the car. They've dug this hole themselves, and they can dig themselves out of it again.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I agree fully that this is possible, even likely. That doesn't absolve Tesla of their obligations to not remove or limit previously delivered functionality on my vehicle when they fix it.

Tesla's mistake is not in deploying software updates to fix things, or in relying on 3rd party APIs which can change. Their mistake was in tying those same fixes to feature removals.

If the car was out of warranty, then it might be my problem rather than theirs, but the warranty said they'll repair what breaks (with no exclusion for API calls). Meanwhile nothing I signed at any time in the purchasing process or since has given Tesla the right to remove or limit any functionality on the car. They've dug this hole themselves, and they can dig themselves out of it again.

Well the thing is this situation is not that straight forward. If it was a case where the API broke and Tesla has "ended support" (meaning no updates for your car anymore) they may have broken some obligations. However, if the fix was in a later version (that is tied with feature changes), I'm not sure if the manufacturer is obligated to release an independent patch to fix it on older versions.

 

[green1]

Would you be ok if an automaker released a patch to fix the navigation in your car, but it disabled the stereo?
How is that different in any way?

 

[msnow]

Cool thanks, I'm not in a rush to get a random bug patch. It'll come whenever it comes. Now if you were to tell me that they fixed nav, or added some cool features, I might make my way over to the Tesla store

Anyways, sorry for hijacking green1.

Speculation but I turned on Dolby in the UHFS and it sounds great for the first time. It could also be my imagination since I saw that module was updated in this release so it could be a little confirmation bias.