Yeah, I'm the one with details and a desire to learn more, and you're the one with brash, dismissive hyperbole. You're right.
And that's why I have been trying to discuss it in a cooperative fashion fitting to TMC.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
My Dear Mr Ohmman - you have exercised such patience, careful responses and concern on Greens babble. I am surprised you have not wiped this thread with the snippy cloth.
I for one am exhausted about what Green seems to want - restrictions on what a car company can retrieve when it finds what it releases is being misused. Now, 300+ comments later, same argument but needling every possible chink in the armor.
If I was in your unblinking position, I'd have blown this thread up and sanctioned Green. You are a better man than I, gunga Din.
Don85D
Member
If we take this discussion to include machines always connected to the internet in order to provide function of which I think the Model S is a start, then there is no debate that to remain current you will always need the latest SW and if that looks like the vendor owns the machine's function then that's how it needs to work.
The Internet of Things may not suit the ownership model of automobiles as we have known it but it's time to change. We went EV because it was time to change and continuous SW updates come with the package. It's not wrong just different.
The Internet of Things may not suit the ownership model of automobiles as we have known it but it's time to change. We went EV because it was time to change and continuous SW updates come with the package. It's not wrong just different.
Please post said details. I have yet to see a single snippet of law from you, yet you claim to know it better than I
rxlawdude
Active Member
Really? You people crack me up. So let's say there's a safety issue that the auto manufacturer issues a recall for. All owners are notified. You choose not to do that update because you perceive the recall fix will do something to the vehicle's performance you don't like.
Now, you get into an accident because you refused the fix. Legally and morally, it's all on you. There is no legal precedent otherwise.
Green's free to whine and bitch, or to find another manufacturer that meets his needs. I have zero sympathy for his position. Nor would any US court.
rxlawdude
Active Member
Snipped of whose law? I believe Ohmman is in the US, and you are in Canada. You expect us to be familiar with Canadian law?
rxlawdude
Active Member
Thanks for the voice of reason, Bonnie. Indeed, I really don't understand the OP's issue. He knew the car comes with updates OTA, and he knew that these OTA updates were part of continuous product development and improvements (the latter meaning SAFETY, too).
rxlawdude
Active Member
Please provide a citation of a situation identical to yours which has been litigated on the warranty theories you espouse.
We'll wait.
rxlawdude
Active Member
And sometimes, discussing logically and calmly only causes boorish, brash, and dismissive hyperbole.
You can't fix others' personality traits.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
My problem with this argument is that Tesla doesn't need a EULA. They don't force any updates at the moment. You have to click to allow the update.
This issue then goes back to becoming an internet connected feature that broke because of a third party change and whether a manufacturer is legally obligated to provide a fix that is independent of general updates (which may include other feature changes that are undesirable to some owners). My example demonstrates that it is not the case in the mobile world and I can't think of any precedent off the top of my head where a company was forced to do so in other cases. If there was a law to such effect, it would exponentially increase the difficulty of developing software.
Tesla does update AP tiles and Navigon map updates without the user interacting or accepting the update. Don't know if that changes your argument but F.Y.I. Also, @green1 is getting those today.
If your case is clear cut as you claim, you might just file a case with the CAMVAP. Seems like a reasonable path that may be less expensive than a lawsuit.
so you don't care what everyone else thinks about your position, but you want everyone to care about what you think? the irony...seriously, if you want full functionality, then upgrade your software, or accept the decision you made. If that isn't up to par for you, then get rid of your car and find another one that better suits your needs.
davidc18
Active Member
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The AP tiles I believe are always internet connected and whatever is on the car is just a cached version (similar to Google maps).
The Navigon map updates, I suppose someone can take issue with (I guess if someone wants outdated maps), although that is unlikely. I believe they did promise free map updates and the MVPA may have a line about that. Also it seems the auto update of those maps started in 6.0 and there may be something about that in the software release notes for that version.
OFFICIAL: Onboard map updates coming with 6.0 | Tesla Motors
AZ Desert Driver
Rare combination
And the "Dislike"--guess who dislikes anything not supportive of Greens position?
sillydriver
Member
Sure they need a EULA. If they don't, so the car is entirely green1's property, then Tesla has an obligation under warranty to fix, for example, the voice control that is an advertised feature of the car. But if the car is entirely green1's property (hence my calling this the 'property rights argument') then Tesla has no right to break the non-nag feature of AP of green1's car when they fix the voice control. They have no right because green1 owns the non-nag feature: it's part of his car. Without a EULA he literally owns the software originally delivered in his car, at least to the extent of its controlling his car, if not for outside sale. But if Tesla had imposed a EULA to the effect that green1 wasn't sold this software feature along with the car, then Tesla would be off the hook. But they didn't impose a EULA, so they aren't off the hook. The fact that what caused the break is a third party change, etc., is of no concequence. That's Tesla's problem to fix. If Tesla didn't want to get in this bind they should have had their legal people write a EULA that 1) retained their ownership of software functions and 2) excused themselves from having to repair functions that break due to third party actions beyond their control. But they didn't. Hence the need for a EULA.
Last edited:
diamond.g
Active Member
For me it now makes sense why other manufacturers offers internet connected features for a separate fee. Allows them the flexibility to weasel out of the very thing @green1 is concerned about.
Does Chevy have these kind of updates for the Volt? While I like the updates I can see where the way traditional manufacturers do it is better.
Does Chevy have these kind of updates for the Volt? While I like the updates I can see where the way traditional manufacturers do it is better.
I posted the applicable Tesla warranty information. You never did. I believe that of the two of us, I'm the only one who has posted actual documentation. For reference:
Tesla Model S Warranty (North America)
Magnuson-Moss Full Text
FTC Consumer Alert Bulletin regarding Automotive Modification (one important clause to note is "The manufacturer or dealer can, however, require consumers to use select repair facilities if the repair services are provided to consumers free of charge under the warranty.")
The Tesla warranty expressly omits your claim to warranted service. So what you're asking me to do is to post the part of the law that says that this warranty is invalid. Do you get why that doesn't make much sense? You've said it's invalid, so I believe the burden of proof is upon you.
fallen888
Participant
Similar threads
