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

[ohmman]

These updates appear frequently, sometimes daily, so it doesn't mean your car wasn't up to date. It means Tesla's is making rapid changes, you can argue if that's good or bad.

I've never seen releases occurring daily. My experience is that they occur at irregular intervals, but usually no closer than a couple of weeks and no longer than a couple of months.

I thought we were getting somewhere earlier today in this thread. By getting somewhere, I mean I was learning some things. The mutual discussion appears to have been paused in lieu of more black and white side-taking.

Did you ever locate the "very clear" language about warranty law? I was out all day and had to stop poking around.

 

[green1]

Warranty law is well known, I feel no need to justify it to you. Feel free to do your own search. These are the most basic of consumer protections, and available in pretty much all first world countries.

 

[stopcrazypp]

If the thing XYZ wanted to remove was part of the suspension, where it was necessary to remove it to fix the shock, then my conclusion changes. But eliminating the nag-free aspect of green1's car is most certainly not a necessary part of fixing the voice control in his car. Tesla has bundled the two together in customer builds for their own convenience, but that's not green1's problem. I think those who have rooted the car have discovered that nags are easily toggled off. Tesla can easily provide green1 with a build that is identical to the current build except that the toggle is off, in order not to break the nag-freeness that green1 values in the car he owns. In fact I have little doubt that Elon's and other Tesla executives' cars are provided with just such a build, so it is trivially easy for Tesla to provide it to green1. So the hood ornament is not connected to the shock absorber.

I don't see the analogy working. It's definitely not as straight forward as taking off a physical part. Just looking at changes since 7.0, there are least 20+ feature changes (this is just looking at the general headlines, if you count individual changes within each one there may be much more). Each one can be deemed an undesirable change in functionality. That can mean 20+ different branches just for 7.0+.
Model S software/firmware changelog

I'm reminded of the Android 4.4 Kitkat restrictions to SD Card write permissions, which Google pitched as a logical upgrade in security (similar to how this is a safety related), but some people felt it was a major functionality loss. It was easy to toggle back if you rooted your device, but obviously no manufacturer nor did Google implement such a toggle.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2684188
There are some serious vulnerabilities in 4.3 that Google said they would not patch, and basically if you did not update to 4.4, you would have to live with it.
Report: Android 4.3 Devices Vulnerable to Bug
Google: Why we won't patch pre-KitKat Android WebView | ZDNet

For the people who didn't like the 4.4 changes, they basically had three choices:
1) Live with any bugs and vulnerabilities in 4.3
2) Update to 4.4 and accept the change
3) Root the device (and risk voiding warranty) and toggle back the SD Card write permissions to like 4.3

There was no 4th choice of forcing the manufacturer to patch 4.3 independently nor a fifth choice of forcing them to offer a version of 4.4 without the new SD Card permission restrictions. People who are familiar with iOS can probably come up with plenty of similar examples. Basically I see no precedent to what green1 is asking for.

 

[EVie'sDad]

A much better comparison would be to use Android OS updates, there was 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, 5.x and now variations of 6.x Does Tesla really intend to support a fragmented market like Google does?

I would not think so.

Eventually old firmware has to either be updated or obsoleted and dropped from support. You remain behind at your own risk, the rest of us are advancing the technology towards full autonomy, this is the only way the platform will eventuall reach that lofty goal in several iterations.

If you chose to no longer participate in improving the package originally delivered, then you are just impacting the overall success of the technology. Don't expect Tesla to hold out support for users who refuse/opt out of receiving their updated improvements.

 

[deonb]

I do have a bit of precedence from this on my Toyota Highlander Hybrid 2006.

It came with a navigation system that had the usual idiot "safety" feature that most non-Teslas have, which is that a passenger is not allowed to enter an address into the navigation system while the car is being driven.

However, it had a hidden override to turn this off. My wife used this from day one. She always entered addresses after I started driving.

I wouldn't have bought that car if this override wasn't available in some form. On some vehicles you have to buy a 3rd party hardware device for this override - but on the Toyota it was done in software, and easily accessible if you knew how.

Came around 2010/2011? (I think), Toyota released a patch that turned that software override off. So from then, each time I dropped the car off at the dealer, I put a note on it to "NOT upgrade the firmware". Actually from the third year onward they just knew not to upgrade the older firmware, and actually warned owners the upgrade would cripple that feature. The dealership even laughed with me about how stupid Toyota is for changing this. I would just imagine the reaction / mutiny at dealerships if Toyota someone tied the working of cruise control to taking this update.

Without the new firmware I wouldn't be able to get new maps, but I was fine with that, as I was able to continue to drive the car in the condition I bought it, until the day I sold it 10 years later. Great car.

I think this is all that green1 is asking.

 

[sillydriver]

I don't see the analogy working. It's definitely not as straight forward as taking off a physical part. Just looking at changes since 7.0, there are least 20+ feature changes (this is just looking at the general headlines, if you count individual changes within each one there may be much more). Each one can be deemed an undesirable change in functionality. That can mean 20+ different branches just for 7.0+.
Model S software/firmware changelog

I'm reminded of the Android 4.4 Kitkat restrictions to SD Card write permissions, which Google pitched as a logical upgrade in security (similar to how this is a safety related), but some people felt it was a major functionality loss. It was easy to toggle back if you rooted your device, but obviously no manufacturer nor did Google implement such a toggle.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2684188
There are some serious vulnerabilities in 4.3 that Google said they would not patch, and basically if you did not update to 4.4, you would have to live with it.
Report: Android 4.3 Devices Vulnerable to Bug
Google: Why we won't patch pre-KitKat Android WebView | ZDNet

For the people who didn't like the 4.4 changes, they basically had three choices:
1) Live with any bugs and vulnerabilities in 4.3
2) Update to 4.4 and accept the change
3) Root the device (and risk voiding warranty) and toggle back the SD Card write permissions to like 4.3

There was no 4th choice of forcing the manufacturer to patch 4.3 independently nor a fifth choice of forcing them to offer a version of 4.4 without the new SD Card permission restrictions. People who are familiar with iOS can probably come up with plenty of similar examples. Basically I see no precedent to what green1 is asking for.

I appreciate good arguments and want to acknowledge that yours is well-presented. You correctly point out that accommodating every possible combination of owner desires would result in 2^20 firmware versions. My response is, first, that property rights remain what they are despite this issue. Likewise, whether or not there is a precedent for patching software this way does not alter the property rights in question.

This is not something I would like to see but frankly, the way for Tesla to defeat the argument is to sell their car with a restrictive EULA which the buyer can either take, or they can leave and go someplace else to get a car. I would strongly recommend to Tesla that the more customer-friendly way to do this is to retain ownership of the firmware while declaring in the EULA that they will offer periodic updates which are not mandatory (except as required by law) but have content that Tesla will control. I think there is a customer sat benefit for them to explicitly lay out the ground rules for what their update practices will be. But the point is that they didn't force an EULA in green1's case, so what green1 wants is still strongly supported by the property rights argument.

My other, less relevant response to your 2^20 firmware versions argument is a practical one, which is that AP nags and speed limits are by far the most substantial undesired firmware changes that customers would want to opt out of. Few of the other 1048575 combinations would arise. I would also argue that these two AP detractions don't improve safety or reduce the rate of accidents, but that is a whole different discussion separate from green1's argument, which I'm not sure I have the energy to pursue.

So my conclusion is that regardless of the issues raised in your post, Tesla didn't force an EULA on green1 (or any of us) that would give them cover to do what are doing with respect to updates.

 

[Trunk Gap]

Updating is your choice entirely. For you in this case you will most likely see bio difference between the 2 versions, however there new version probably had minor bug fixes and such which may be good.
That said, I tend to take a more cautious approach, and wait for others to update to see if Tesla has made any changes I might disagree with before taking there plunge. I have no need to be on the bleeding edge.

So what is the best way to understand what's in the updates? I feel like I come on here and there isn't a "what's new with the latest release?" Thread, or am I missing something? Every thread on SW updates seems to be a debate like this vs actual info. Is that just the culture of this forum? Where can I find concrete info?

 

[msnow]

So what is the best way to understand what's in the updates? I feel like I come on here and there isn't a "what's new with the latest release?" Thread, or am I missing something? Every thread on SW updates seems to be a debate like this vs actual info. Is that just the culture of this forum? Where can I find concrete info?

The 7.1 thread is the closest to it but since Tesla doesn't provide a level of detail in the release notes it's pretty much speculation.

 

[fallen888]

So what is the best way to understand what's in the updates? I feel like I come on here and there isn't a "what's new with the latest release?" Thread, or am I missing something? Every thread on SW updates seems to be a debate like this vs actual info. Is that just the culture of this forum? Where can I find concrete info?

Totally with you on this. I don't care for the arguments (as well thought out as they may be). I just want the details on the release. Since Tesla doesn't provide them, it's up to us to get a crowd-sourced list going with just the facts we've observed. And that's exactly what I plan on doing after I take delivery in September.

 

[ohmman]

Warranty law is well known, I feel no need to justify it to you. Feel free to do your own search. These are the most basic of consumer protections, and available in pretty much all first world countries.

Then I'll take a less cooperative approach to my argument. I've looked, and you appear to be wrong. But thanks for the dismissiveness.

I'll use Magnuson-Moss in the US, which is much more consumer friendly and consistent than the provincial consumer protection afforded in Canada. This warranty law IS well known and allows any provider of any product to limit their warranty with a few restrictions. One of the restrictions that relate to autos is to make sure that if you modify your vehicle using aftermarket parts, you cannot void your warranty. This appears to be what you think is "very clear". I would agree with that. However, this is in place to avoid having manufacturers create a monopoly on OEM equipment. It does allow, however, things like Apple voiding an iPhone warranty for jailbreaking. Apple cannot say it's "illegal" to jailbreak, but they can discontinue support. The limited warranty provisions that Apple uses to do so are not off limits to auto manufacturers - they're available to all consumer facing businesses.

As I mention, Canadian Provincial Consumer Affairs have nothing that holds up as well as Magnuson-Moss, but they do have a patchwork of less consumer friendly rules.

I do not think Tesla cares to go down this path from a public relations standpoint. I do think they have a legal right to do so, though.

 

[green1]

Canadian consumer protections are more robust than what is in Magnuson Moss. They do vary from province to province, but not one of the provinces allows manufacturers to avoid warranty claims for modifications that don't directly cause an issue.
Canada also requires a certain level of warranty, it's not just manufacturer goodwill.

 

[ohmman]

Canadian consumer protections are more robust than what is in Magnuson Moss. They do vary from province to province, but not one of the provinces allows manufacturers to avoid warranty claims for modifications that don't directly cause an issue.
Canada also requires a certain level of warranty, it's not just manufacturer goodwill.

This doesn't seem to be supported in the literature I've read. Most of it points to MM being the most consumer friendly of "all first world countries" that you referenced.

At a very minimum, I would think that you'd back down from your claim that it's "VERY clear" on this. If it's clear on anything, it's that a limited warranty can come with restrictions, so long as they don't protect the monopoly of a manufacturer. In the case of your car, Tesla would have a reasonable claim that it doesn't have to support software features since you toyed with the software. That said, I don't think they should, or that they will.

 

[green1]

If Tesla could claim that, they would in a heartbeat. It would get them out of a sticky situation while at the same time sending a message against modifying your vehicle. Tesla would be all over that.
Luckily for me they'd be in contravention of the law by doing so. And I'm sure their lawyers would so them before I had to do anything.

 

[green1]

Magnuson Moss isn't bad, but if you think it's the best in the first world you're living under a rock. The best in the world is Europe, not the USA.

 

[Topher]

There was no 4th choice of forcing the manufacturer to patch 4.3 independently

If there was that fourth choice, that you could get a court order for companies to make software patches like that available, it would bankrupt every single software firm in the world. If green1 gets what he wants, the rest of us won't get our model ≡.

Thank you kindly.

 

[ohmman]

If Tesla could claim that, they would in a heartbeat. It would get them out of a sticky situation while at the same time sending a message against modifying your vehicle. Tesla would be all over that.
Luckily for me they'd be in contravention of the law by doing so. And I'm sure their lawyers would so them before I had to do anything.

I'll just assume you don't want to be part of a conversation on this. And I'm sorry, but I think you're speaking with confidence on a topic you probably shouldn't be.

 

[green1]

If green1 gets what he wants, the rest of us won't get our model ≡.

Thank you kindly.

If following basic consumer protection laws will bankrupt Tesla, they're in MUCH worse shape than they let on, and if they're that immoral, and that close to bankruptcy, you don't want a model 3.

 

[green1]

I'll just assume you don't want to be part of a conversation on this. And I'm sorry, but I think you're speaking with confidence on a topic you probably shouldn't be.

I've researched this. It is very clear that you have not.

 

[Topher]

If following basic consumer protection laws will bankrupt Tesla, they're in MUCH worse shape than they let on, and if they're that immoral, and that close to bankruptcy, you don't want a model 3.

Nonsense. You haven't shown ANY violation of consumer protection laws, even here, informally to say nothing of in a court of law. Heck, you haven't even demonstrated that the aspect you are complaining about is part of the contract you entered into when you bought the car. Why don't you post that?

Did you just ignore that part about every other software firm? If your wish was granted, it would bankrupt Apple.

Thank you kindly.

 

[green1]

Apple hasn't tried to tie a warranty repair to removing unrelated features. So maybe the problem isn't general software, but Tesla.
As for posting my contact with Tesla, all owners here already have a copy of it. It's the warranty, in it they say they will fix parts of the car that don't work, and they don't say they will remove unrelated features in the process.