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

[thecloud]

Sorry for the second response here but I must be missing something. I have three old Apple computers - an iMac, and two Mac minis, which are running old, deprecated software. The minis use the web to download updates for the "server" software that I run on them and it's perfectly serviceable. I've never been forced to upgrade for any reason. Everything works just as it has for years.

Well, if you're going to use the Mac as an analogy and you're running something at least 5 years old, check whether your Finder > Go menu contains an iDisk menu item. That feature doesn't work anymore, because the back-end service (MobileMe) was shut down. If you updated your OS software, you could get similar functionality with iCloud, which replaced MobileMe. Apple didn't provide a special patch for old versions to restore cloud-storage functionality; you had to update to a newer OS version which supported it.

 

[tfung]

This techno-car subject actually raises another question - what are these cars going to be like in 10-20 years? I still see 30 year old honda civics and accords driving around. Is a 20 year old tesla going to be a paperweight because it'll have old unsupported software on an old unsupported computer?

The whole thread is very interesting, but this post stands out.. I'm personally more curious about the above post and how it will affect our cars 10+ years down the road....

 

[Stoneymonster]

The whole thread is very interesting, but this post stands out.. I'm personally more curious about the above post and how it will affect our cars 10+ years down the road....

Personally I think autonomy is going to make the car industry unrecognizable in that timeframe. This is the last generation of cars as we know and think about them.

 

[ohmman]

Well, if you're going to use the Mac as an analogy and you're running something at least 5 years old, check whether your Finder > Go menu contains an iDisk menu item. That feature doesn't work anymore, because the back-end service (MobileMe) was shut down. If you updated your OS software, you could get similar functionality with iCloud, which replaced MobileMe. Apple didn't provide a special patch for old versions to restore cloud-storage functionality; you had to update to a newer OS version which supported it.

My response was to the idea that an 8-10 year old machine should be able to browse the Web and do word processing. My machines are more than capable to that extent, including the one running Panther. I'd argue that's you're discussing supporting an external service (even if it was Apple's), not the actual core OS. This does get us on topic, too, because that's the argument. Should the OS support external services when the OS itself is deprecated?

In the case of Tesla and the MobileMe/iCloud transition, we're seeing a situation where cloud services are more integral and less value-add. MobileMe never offered much for me, so I never used it. That's why I don't miss it on my old boxes. But I use iCloud quite a bit due to things like shared keychains, Photo Stream, etc. In my Tesla, I think it's arguable that the car is pretty dependent upon Google Maps and Voice. So those would likely need to be supported moving forward. Of course, they are. There's a version out there right now, free of charge, that supports them. So it's a nuanced argument. But once they do sunset firmware updates for my classic non-AP Model S, I would think they'd need to provide alternatives that work without connectivity. Have Navigon provide in-car overhead maps for the 17", at least. The voice recognition portion could be harder, since it works best when it's in the cloud. Perhaps they could support that by bringing it in-house instead of using Google's API.

 

[rxlawdude]

I'd be more worried about a car that has 3G connectivity. That's more likely to be nonsupported by networks in ten years.

LTE is already being overtaken by "5G" services, but I'm guessing 15 years for LTE to be not supported on the networks. I plan on replacing my MS by then.

 

[thecloud]

My response was to the idea that an 8-10 year old machine should be able to browse the Web and do word processing. My machines are more than capable to that extent, including the one running Panther.

Agreed, if we're talking about working locally (the 'word processing' part.) Anything that involves talking to servers is going to be iffier, because the world outside my machine has moved on. The version of Safari that comes with Panther doesn't render HTML5 and various sites will be missing elements or won't load. My bank stopped letting me use older versions of Safari to log into their website.

I'd argue that's you're discussing supporting an external service (even if it was Apple's), not the actual core OS. This does get us on topic, too, because that's the argument. Should the OS support external services when the OS itself is deprecated?

Yes, that was my point: it's an example where an external service changed, and there was a path forward to restore the lost functionality (cloud storage) again, but it involved updating to the new OS rather than having the manufacturer keep providing patches for every old deprecated OS version that people wanted to stay on.

In my Tesla, I think it's arguable that the car is pretty dependent upon Google Maps and Voice.

I'd argue the car is not dependent at all on those features. Some people ignore them entirely and have a TomTom stuck to their dashboard. Others rely on Waze running on their phone. The features that need to be supported forever and ever are the ones local to the car, which make it so you can safely drive from point A to point B, and have heat or air conditioning along the way. Everything else is a nice-to-have.

So those would likely need to be supported moving forward. Of course, they are. There's a version out there right now, free of charge, that supports them. So it's a nuanced argument. But once they do sunset firmware updates for my classic non-AP Model S, I would think they'd need to provide alternatives that work without connectivity. Have Navigon provide in-car overhead maps for the 17", at least. The voice recognition portion could be harder, since it works best when it's in the cloud. Perhaps they could support that by bringing it in-house instead of using Google's API.

Definitely food for thought. At this point, Tesla hasn't dropped software support for any Model S or Model X vehicles. Everyone has the ability to get the latest update, even if some portions of it don't apply to every model. (Question: were there any Roadster firmware updates after production stopped?)

 

[redi]

For any other fw hold-outs, Servicehelpna said today "maps will not work properly without version 7.1 v2.28 or later.".

Voice recog has not worked for me (being a v6.2 hold out) for weeks.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Is there actually an older version in existence? (I don't know the answer to that ... maybe for Classic MSs?)

Sure they call it 7.1.xxx just now, and 8.0.xxx soon ... buts its all the same version, just a different update-point-number (and maybe they should have numbered it 1.7.1.xxx and then 1.8.0.xxx ... and maybe they should have called AutoPilot "SteeringAssist", whatever).

Is it correct to say that for a Model S (any & every Model S??) you can download and apply the latest version 7.1.xxx and you will be able to download 8.0.xxx? If so I don't see any "new / old version", just patches to the current version, and a version numbering schema that implies major and minor changes.

Maybe my terminology is kind of sloppy, but by "older version" I meant precisely the difference between say 7.1 and 8.0 ( or more accurately 7.1 vs 7.0 or 6.2). Essentially the issue is if Tesla is obligated to release an independent patch specifically to address this voice/map problem for each of those versions. As others already pointed out with examples from other industries, this is not a common obligation.

There is also a separate discussion of how long Tesla should be expected to support the car with updates in general. I think most people expect within the 8 year warranty, but after that, who knows?

 

[WannabeOwner]

I meant precisely the difference between say 7.1 and 8.0

Thanks, I was indeed assuming that was the crux of the discussion.

Surely they are not separate "products"? Just point-releases. My assumption, which may well be wrong, is that 6.2, 7.0 and 7.1 (and thus 8.0 at some point too) are available to all the cars, not just to "newer" hardware. Thus they are just upgrades to the same actual "product". All owners are entitled / eligible to download the new version.

Now if someone chooses not to upgrade from a.b.C to a.b.D, in particular because of some loss of functionality, I can see the issue with that. But I don't think that because it is named 6.x and 7.x that that constitutes an "old, legacy, product" which still needs to be maintained, its just a point-release.

Put another way, there isn't really any difference between upgrading from 6.2.998 to 6.2.999 and from 6.2.999 to 7.0.0 - it's still just a point release - except that Tesla have decided to change the Major Version Number (presumably to indicate that the changes are more significant than just some patches). How much more significant is going from 6.2 to 7.0, compared to 7.0 to 7.1 [Major Version vs. Minor Version number increment]? I don't know, but I suspect it's just "marketing", whereas I'm more likely to think that 7.0.001 to 7.0.002 is just a bug fix, and no new functionality,

Hence my earlier point that they could have called the versions 1.6,2, 1.7.0, 1.7.1 .. and then when they launched 2.x THAT would be the point at which 1.x was retired, and presumably 2.x would require newer hardware, or something which meant it was not available for download to "legacy hardware", and then at that point there would be an issue about continued support / updates for customers on the 1.x branch.

At that point I would expect 1.x to continue to be maintained, probably for a "defined" period of time, but with no new features. So if API to Google Maps broke that might be fixed, and also any security breached that come to light, but a new feature, such as Summon, would only be made available in the the 2.x version

Summary: I think version 7.0 / 7.1 is a red herring, the only issue is that a feature was removed (as far as the OP is concerned). To my mind that could have happened going from 7.0.123 to 7.0.124 (e.g. a safety release, deemed critical by Tesla, that took away hands-off-wheel) as easily as it did going from 7.0 to 7.1

P.S. That now raises a question in my mind: Have Tesla ever updated, say, 6.2.xxx after 7.0.xxx was rolled out? If not then, in my mind, the version numbering is just a sequential sequence, not separate, separately maintained, branches.

Sorry for long wibble ...

 

[sillydriver]

Having read this long thread I come down on the side of @green1 because I see it as boiling down to a narrow and fairly simple question of property rights. If Tesla had us sign a software license that allowed them to remove or alter functionality at their discretion after sale, then green1 wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they didn't. So Tesla has no right to make such alterations without our permission. The exception would be a situation where a law or government regulation required owners to allow Tesla to make such changes for safety reasons, but that is not the case here. Arguments about accepting software updates for the sake of the advancment of technology, or of Tesla's business model, or of overall safety are beside the point.

Tesla has no obligation to preserve functionality after the warranty expires. But I believe they do have an obligation to do so within the warranty period unless there is language in the warranty that excuses them if third party factors like the interface for Google maps change.

 

[WannabeOwner]

I have a question: Did Tesla remove functionality?

In the sense that: there has always been a requirement to keep your hands on the wheel (I think I have that right, from when AP was first delivered, excepting that PR/Marketing-speak before that suggested that may not be the case, please correct me if I have that wrong).

So if it has always been a requirement to keep hands on the wheel, and at some times AP didn't nag you to ... and then the nagging got more frequent ... has any functionality been removed? or has a bug, that allowed greater hands-free operation, been fixed (actually it is currently only "partially fixed" )

I expect I have got that wrong somewhere ... I'll be interested in other views.

 

[wilheldp]

I have a question: Did Tesla remove functionality?

In the sense that: there has always been a requirement to keep your hands on the wheel (I think I have that right, from when AP was first delivered, excepting that PR/Marketing-speak before that suggested that may not be the case, please correct me if I have that wrong).

So if it has always been a requirement to keep hands on the wheel, and at some times AP didn't nag you to ... and then the nagging got more frequent ... has any functionality been removed? or has a bug, that allowed greater hands-free operation, been fixed (actually it is currently only "partially fixed" )

I expect I have got that wrong somewhere ... I'll be interested in other views.

The nags are a secondary, and admittedly less important, problem to the green1's main concern. And the main concern isn't really a removal of a feature...it's more of a limitation imposed on a feature. There did not used to be a limit to how fast you could operate on Autopilot. With 7.1, Autopilot was limited to 5 mph over the speed limit on non-divided highways and secondary roads. Green1 has stated that the speed limits on many roads that he uses on a daily basis are not properly picked up by the AP sensors, which would cause AP to either not work, or drive at a speed so low it would be unsafe.

The whole situation could be resolved with Tesla doing a better job of speed limit recognition, or some sort of effective appeal process where speed limit discrepancies can be reported by owners and fixed in the AP system in a timely manner.

 

[sillydriver]

I have a question: Did Tesla remove functionality?

In the sense that: there has always been a requirement to keep your hands on the wheel (I think I have that right, from when AP was first delivered, excepting that PR/Marketing-speak before that suggested that may not be the case, please correct me if I have that wrong).

So if it has always been a requirement to keep hands on the wheel, and at some times AP didn't nag you to ... and then the nagging got more frequent ... has any functionality been removed? or has a bug, that allowed greater hands-free operation, been fixed (actually it is currently only "partially fixed" )

I expect I have got that wrong somewhere ... I'll be interested in other views.

My view is that there is absolutely no requirement to keep hands on the wheel. Tesla's documentation tells us to do that but that has no legal (or for that matter moral) force whatever. Nor does the car fail to work if hands are off the wheel. The fact is that the car does function with hands off the wheel: that is a functionality that the car sold to green1 had. I think there is a legitimate argument to the effect that if Tesla never said it had this functionality, then they aren't required to maintain it. I think Elon did say the car would be hands free on ramp to off ramp, but I'm not sure he did. Yet even if he did not, the argument in my earlier post holds: green1 did not enter into a license that allows Tesla to alter any aspect of the car green1 bought without his permission.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Having read this long thread I come down on the side of @green1 because I see it as boiling down to a narrow and fairly simple question of property rights. If Tesla had us sign a software license that allowed them to remove or alter functionality at their discretion after sale, then green1 wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But they didn't. So Tesla has no right to make such alterations without our permission. The exception would be a situation where a law or government regulation required owners to allow Tesla to make such changes for safety reasons, but that is not the case here. Arguments about accepting software updates for the sake of the advancment of technology, or of Tesla's business model, or of overall safety are beside the point.

Tesla has no obligation to preserve functionality after the warranty expires. But I believe they do have an obligation to do so within the warranty period unless there is language in the warranty that excuses them if third party factors like the interface for Google maps change.

Except the gist I get is that in this case no altering of functionality happened without permission. By staying in his old version, he kept his old functionality. What happened however is a third party service running off a server (not on the car itself) changed, and that broke some functionality. But nothing on his car changed. The only altering of function that would happen is if he gave permission by allowing the update.

So this is not a case of altering functionality without permission, but rather if a manufacturer is obligated to release independent patches to fix internet connected features.

This is different from the other examples given where the automaker has explicit license terms where they are allowed to force a change on the user's software (meaning you don't get a choice as to whether you update the software). Tesla have not done anything like that yet (except perhaps that case wk057 said Tesla forced a firmware rollback remotely, although that is a special case that even Elon got involved looking into).

 

[sillydriver]

Except the gist I get is that in this case no altering of functionality happened without permission. By staying in his old version, he kept his old functionality. What happened however is a third party service running off a server (not on the car itself) changed, and that broke some functionality. But nothing on his car changed. The only altering of function that would happen is if he gave permission by allowing the update.

So this is not a case of altering functionality without permission, but rather if a manufacturer is obligated to release independent patches to fix internet connected features.

This is different from the other examples given where the automaker has explicit license terms where they are allowed to force a change on the user's software (meaning you don't get a choice as to whether you update the software). Tesla have not done anything like that yet (except perhaps that case wk057 said Tesla forced a firmware rollback remotely, although that is a special case that even Elon got involved looking into).

Yes, in my opinion if Tesla never claimed that their product had feature X (fully hands off), so they are not obligated to maintain it under warranty, and if feature Y (Google maps) breaks due to circumstances beyond their control, and if we assume this means they not obligated to fix it under warranty, then Tesla is under no obligation to do anything, although they may choose to offer their customer an update that fixes Y while breaking X, which their customer can choose to accept or not. But if the warranty is written such that Tesla is obligated to fix Y, then I think it is reasonable for the customer to demand that Tesla perform their obligation to fix Y without modifying other aspects of the car (like breaking X) if those modifications are not a necessary part of fixing Y. So it boils down to Tesla's warranty obligations with respect to Y.

 

[ohmman]

So it boils down to Tesla's warranty obligations with respect to Y.

Tesla doesn't really spell those out very well in the Model S warranty document. There are three parts:

• Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty - "covers the repair or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla that occur under normal use for a period of 4 years or 50,000 miles (80,000 km), whichever comes first."
• Supplementary Restraint Limited Warranty
• Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty

I've quoted the BVLW because I believe that would be the only section remotely applicable to software support. They seem to limit themselves to parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla and don't make any obligations with respect to software function.

As an aside, they could theoretically waive warranty obligations for hacking of the vehicle, based on this clause:

Any repair, alteration or modification of the vehicle, or the installation or use of fluids, parts or accessories, made by a person or facility not authorized or certified to do so;

It would need to be argued that toying with the software is the same as a modification of the vehicle, and I can think of good arguments for and against this case.

 

[sillydriver]

Tesla doesn't really spell those out very well in the Model S warranty document. There are three parts:

• Basic Vehicle Limited Warranty - "covers the repair or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla that occur under normal use for a period of 4 years or 50,000 miles (80,000 km), whichever comes first."
• Supplementary Restraint Limited Warranty
• Battery and Drive Unit Limited Warranty

I've quoted the BVLW because I believe that would be the only section remotely applicable to software support. They seem to limit themselves to parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla and don't make any obligations with respect to software function.

As an aside, they could theoretically waive warranty obligations for hacking of the vehicle, based on this clause:

It would need to be argued that toying with the software is the same as a modification of the vehicle, and I can think of good arguments for and against this case.

Thanks for supplying the actual warranty language! Yes, on its face it does not sound like they are obligated to fix Google maps, although there may be case law that interprets this warranty language for 21st century software issues. I don't know because I'm not a lawyer, despite the writing style of some of my posts!

 

[MP3Mike]

Well technically you could say that the center console computer is the "part" and it isn't working properly. So they need to repair/replace it. (In this case the repair would be a software update.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

It would need to be argued that toying with the software is the same as a modification of the vehicle, and I can think of good arguments for and against this case.

This type of clause is what phone makers routinely use to void phone warranties. A jailbreaking or root would void your warranty (so usually people roll back to factory configuration before sending for service).

 

[Saghost]

Well technically you could say that the center console computer is the "part" and it isn't working properly. So they need to repair/replace it. (In this case the repair would be a software update.)

And how, pray tell, is the center console not working? What is it failing to do?