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

[Az_Rael]

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

Chevy does updates for the Volt via Dealer Service just like other manufacturers. No OTA updates. OnStar is the closest service that does get OTA updates (it has an app), but it is billed as a separate service with extra fees (after the initial "free" period)

A couple of Volt software updates have caused some issues with owners, one notable one that added automatically turning the car off after 1 hour (after someone left their Volt on in a garage and the engine fired up once the battery drained). Others were camping in their Volts, etc and using the feature safely and were very upset when GM removed it. They refused the update, and were able to do that since nothing else in the car changed or was internet connected

 

[msnow]

Fyi, I just found this wiki: Model S software/firmware changelog

Right, @Ingineer also posts the same thing in the sticky 7.1 thread but those are the modules updated. There's no other consistent source than the user feedback in that thread to tell you how those modules changed what you see and use. When Tesla makes big feature additions or changes they do issue a release note.

 

[CuriousG]

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.

The problem with this route is you have to bring your car in for an update and the dealership will charge you an hour (~$175) for the work.

 

[Saghost]

Chevy does updates for the Volt via Dealer Service just like other manufacturers. No OTA updates. OnStar is the closest service that does get OTA updates (it has an app), but it is billed as a separate service with extra fees (after the initial "free" period)

A couple of Volt software updates have caused some issues with owners, one notable one that added automatically turning the car off after 1 hour (after someone left their Volt on in a garage and the engine fired up once the battery drained). Others were camping in their Volts, etc and using the feature safely and were very upset when GM removed it. They refused the update, and were able to do that since nothing else in the car changed or was internet connected

Also note that none of the GM firmware updates performed by the dealer improve functionality. They fix things that GMs considers broken (including, as noted, some things owners might not agree on - kinda like this thread?) but don't add anything new - including things we're pretty sure are software only and added in later model years.

One of the many things Tesla is doing differently than anyone else.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that if you take the car to a dealer for any sort of service, they will update the firmware to the new version whether you wanted it or not.

 

[deonb]

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).

I think the overall question here is (and this is not specifically directed at you), do you believe Tesla sold access to Google Maps? Or did they sell TouchScreen Navigation?

If you think you bought access to Google Maps from Tesla, then I agree that it's an internet connected feature. Let's say hypothetically Google were to stop offering maps, we would have to just live with it - no more maps, and no responsibility from Tesla to fix this.

If you however think you bought TouchScreen Navigation, then Tesla's decision to use Google Maps is coincidental. If Google were to stop offering maps, Tesla would have to find another provider to honor their warranty commitment (does mapquest still exist?).


For those who believe that they bought TouchScreen Navigation instead of just Google maps - here's then a follow up hypothetical:

Let's say Google stop offering maps, and the only way Tesla can provide TouchScreen Navigation is to install a DVD player with maps. But the cheapest way for them to do that is to plug it into the port where the AutoPilot currently goes. Otherwise they'd have to upgrade the motherboard.

So you can basically chose the Navigation DVD player or keep AutoPilot working, but not both.

The question to everybody who is so vehemently against green1's argument - would you honestly be ok with this choice, or are you going to insist that Tesla upgrade the motherboard so that both features keep working?

 

[thecloud]

So you can basically chose the Navigation DVD player or keep AutoPilot working, but not both.

The question to everybody who is so vehemently against green1's argument - would you honestly be ok with this choice, or are you going to insist that Tesla upgrade the motherboard so that both features keep working?

Here's the problem I see with that argument: the issue here does not require making an either/or choice between two features when taking the update path. Tesla is offering a current update in which both features are present. The beta AP feature continues to be beta, but is still working and evolving.

green1's actual argument seems to be this:
- 7.0 has bugs with respect to Canadian speed limit sign detection
- 7.1 Autopilot limits your speed relative to the detected limit on undivided roads
- Therefore, 7.1 must have the same detection bugs as 7.0 and AP will be less safe or unusable.

When your car is actually running the current update and the thing you're afraid of comes to pass, then I'm sure Tesla will be more willing to listen. Right now (and apologies if I missed some info to the contrary), this situation where you update to 7.1 and your AP becomes unusable is completely hypothetical.

 

[MP3Mike]

I don't know what kind of EULA my Samsung TV came with but it forces updates on me that change/add/remove features. I think even features that were advertised. The only way to avoid the updates is to not hook it to the Internet, but then some of the features I want to use like Netflix wouldn't work. I haven't heard a big uprising of people being upset about Samsung's practices.

 

[andrewket]

That's because Samsung is discontinuing services that nobody is using. :/

 

[Topher]

Apple hasn't tried to tie a warranty repair to removing unrelated features. So maybe the problem isn't general software, but Tesla.

Sure they have (except of course that they don't warranty anything). They remove features all the time. You can have the next version of iOS, or the previous one, never some hodge-podge of features.

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.

So you are tacitly admitting that the contract doesn't contain what you claim it does?

They removed a part that was broken. Namely the safety issues with the autopilot. You obsession with other features is irrelevant.

Thank you kindly.

 

[cynix]

Apple hasn't tried to tie a warranty repair to removing unrelated features.

They absolutely do. When you take an iPhone in for repair, they insist on updating to the latest iOS version, and they will refuse to repair your phone if you refuse to update. (Or, more often than not, they'll just update it without asking you.)

 

[stopcrazypp]

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.

I guess I should clarify. Particularly: "then Tesla has no right to break the non-nag feature of AP of green1's car when they fix the voice control". Actually this is not an issue, since before Tesla applies the fix/update, they get your permission first! Thus no violation of property rights occurs, since they have your permission. All an EULA does is allow them to apply any fixes automatically without your permission.

Again the question still goes back to warranty obligations in terms of how fixes are done. Are manufacturers required by law to provide independent fixes that are separate from a general update (which may change features in a way undesirable to the user)? If there is no such obligation, then Tesla has no such legal obligation to apply a separate fix for 7.0.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think the overall question here is (and this is not specifically directed at you), do you believe Tesla sold access to Google Maps? Or did they sell TouchScreen Navigation?

If you think you bought access to Google Maps from Tesla, then I agree that it's an internet connected feature. Let's say hypothetically Google were to stop offering maps, we would have to just live with it - no more maps, and no responsibility from Tesla to fix this.

If you however think you bought TouchScreen Navigation, then Tesla's decision to use Google Maps is coincidental. If Google were to stop offering maps, Tesla would have to find another provider to honor their warranty commitment (does mapquest still exist?).


For those who believe that they bought TouchScreen Navigation instead of just Google maps - here's then a follow up hypothetical:

Let's say Google stop offering maps, and the only way Tesla can provide TouchScreen Navigation is to install a DVD player with maps. But the cheapest way for them to do that is to plug it into the port where the AutoPilot currently goes. Otherwise they'd have to upgrade the motherboard.

So you can basically chose the Navigation DVD player or keep AutoPilot working, but not both.

The question to everybody who is so vehemently against green1's argument - would you honestly be ok with this choice, or are you going to insist that Tesla upgrade the motherboard so that both features keep working?

It's a bit nuanced, since navigation still works, just google maps breaks if Google stopped offering maps. In the most likely case, if such a situation occurs, I think Tesla would offer a replacement online mapping service (similar to how when Rdio died, Tesla substituted in Spotify).

As for the second hypothetical, the analogy doesn't really quite work out since Autopilot still works, it just works in a way that green1 doesn't like compared to the older version. It isn't a choice between two major features really.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that any internet connected feature can't be 100% relied on (even if the service continues, you might be in areas with poor internet connectivity). That's why I use an independent GPS unit (vs some of my friends who like to use their phone) and still might even after I get the Model 3. Although currently the situation with Tesla is still far better than other makes (I know friends that own a Lexus and nav updates are ridiculously expensive).

 

[sillydriver]

I guess I should clarify. Particularly: "then Tesla has no right to break the non-nag feature of AP of green1's car when they fix the voice control". Actually this is not an issue, since before Tesla applies the fix/update, they get your permission first! Thus no violation of property rights occurs, since they have your permission. All an EULA does is allow them to apply any fixes automatically without your permission.

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!

 

[deonb]

As for the second hypothetical, the analogy doesn't really quite work out since Autopilot still works, it just works in a way that green1 doesn't like compared to the older version. It isn't a choice between two major features really.

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.

 

[TexasEV]

It's a bit nuanced, since navigation still works, just google maps breaks if Google stopped offering maps. In the most likely case, if such a situation occurs, I think Tesla would offer a replacement online mapping service (similar to how when Rdio died, Tesla substituted in Spotify).

As for the second hypothetical, the analogy doesn't really quite work out since Autopilot still works, it just works in a way that green1 doesn't like compared to the older version. It isn't a choice between two major features really.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that any internet connected feature can't be 100% relied on (even if the service continues, you might be in areas with poor internet connectivity). That's why I use an independent GPS unit (vs some of my friends who like to use their phone) and still might even after I get the Model 3. Although currently the situation with Tesla is still far better than other makes (I know friends that own a Lexus and nav updates are ridiculously expensive).

The Tesla navigation system IS independent of Internet connection. Navigation doesn't depend on the Google map, it's a Navigon system. That's the map update download we've gotten twice. You don't need an independent GPS unit as the car has one.

 

[deonb]

The Tesla navigation system IS independent of Internet connection. Navigation doesn't depend on the Google map, it's a Navigon system. That's the map update download we've gotten twice. You don't need an independent GPS unit as the car has one.

It's two very distinctly different systems. If you're in "Navigon mode" the UI for entering an address looks very different than "Google mode". It's MUCH more restricted, you basically have to enter an exact address.

Normally it will look up what you typed in through Google, then get an address and feed it to Navigon.

I had a 1999 vehicle that was more functional than "Navigon mode" by itself. At least in "Google mode" it compared favorably to my 2006 vehicle. Well, almost. I had waypoints in that one...

 

[ATQuoteService]

Just think, firmware 8.0 will be coming out shortly and you'll have another war with Tesla. ;-)

I completely understand why you wouldn't want to update your software if nothing is wrong with the current version. I think it is kind crap, but at the end of the day Tesla does own the software and big corporations will do what they want. :-(

 

[ohmman]

I had a 1999 vehicle that was more functional than "Navigon mode" by itself. At least in "Google mode" it compared favorably to my 2006 vehicle. Well, almost. I had waypoints in that one...

Funny, our 2012 Odyssey was years behind the Tesla, even in "Navigon mode." To insert an address, you had to use a cumbersome dial, and selecting place names was a nightmare. I usually used my phone instead of the onboard navigation system.

In Google mode, I find the Tesla pretty great. Voice directions work the first time, and if they don't, you have an actual keyboard to enter things...

 

[deonb]

Funny, our 2012 Odyssey was years behind the Tesla, even in "Navigon mode." To insert an address, you had to use a cumbersome dial, and selecting place names was a nightmare. I usually used my phone instead of the onboard navigation system.

In Google mode, I find the Tesla pretty great. Voice directions work the first time, and if they don't, you have an actual keyboard to enter things...

I had touchscreen keyboards on both my 1999 and 2006 Toyota Navigation systems. Resistive instead of capacitive, but still.

Didn't have voice directions - thankfully. Voice directions is a great way for manufacturers to get away with making their systems completely unusable. Just ask GMC.

I'm actually glad Tesla does not overload more stuff on voice. Even the slacker keyboard interface is much more hidden than it would have otherwise been without voice.

 

[3s-a-charm]

Tesla introduced another pioneering process for automobiles - OTA software updates. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If there wasn't a choice it may even be better. So Tesla provides an "Update ready - install?" prompt which opens the door for complaints and rebellious actions from a small number of people with seemingly nothing better to do with their time. Reminds me of those people on YouTube that spend their time putting themselves in front of cops only to videotape themselves saying, "am I being detained?" over and over - just seeking attention.

Back to what my point is - with a revolutionary idea like OTA updates Tesla has a great majority who love the feature and a minority who are fighting the company for the lack of control. It's a shame as I hope that the end result isn't (ironically) that the OTA updates to Teslas are taken away from everyone because of your position.

Tesla promised OTA updates as much as they promised voice control. You want to be selective on what features you choose to enjoy - sometimes having ultimate control isn't the best thing. Especially when your (and others) safety is at stake. I could imagine that if you were in an at-fault accident that ended up taking someone else's life and it ended up being loosyely or directly linked to the fact that you didn't update a safety feature of the car due to your own stubbornness that Tesla would have such a negative media-storm it wouldn't end well for Tesla or those of us who enjoy the features we have now. However, as you've stated a few times - you probably wouldn't care what others think.

I get it and you are probably right - you have a right to refuse updates and you have a right to enjoy features you were initially sold and yes, Tesla is trying to force you down a path of which you would have to give-in to the large corporation and follow their rules. My question is what happens if you are right? Tesla would need to support legacy software releases so your car's original features work but in doing so would incur increased liability by not being able to implement additional safety features (not to mention the expense to Tesla to support legacy software and the distraction from producing other great features).