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

[EVie'sDad]

Easy: because that version works the way you want, and later versions do not. If you perceive that the update will permanently take away or restrict some feature that's important to you, then you see the update as the inferior software. There is always an urge to hang on tightly to what you've got when you're afraid of losing it.

My earlier post about the speedometer was trying to empathize with the feeling of loss that comes when a feature you use and rely on gets hamstrung. However, I'm optimistic that Tesla is still moving in a forward direction here, pushing the limits, and on balance, the new features have outweighed what was taken away. I still look forward to each update, and to the possibility that I'll again be delighted by what's yet to come.

I find that perception rarely equates to reality, more FUD from those refusing to accept progress. If you aren't ready to adopt the advances, then opt out or sell your Tesla, it obviously wasn't meant for you. So far the advances made have only improved the overall experience and safety of the vehicle's semi-autonomous features. To deny your car of the these updates only puts you and those around you more at risk. If you want to take full advantage of these bleeding edge features, you need to be willing to accept that things change, and sometimes not in the manner you expect, but you will learn that it is for the greater good that all cars are updated, to share and gather information from one another to one day allow us to realize the dream of truly autonomous driving, in two or three generations of development perhaps.

 

[neroden]

I found this thread interesting, mostly as I'm a CS professor and it's interesting to see a different perspective of expectations of Tesla vehicle ownership. ...I think the Tesla developers, much like I would have, anticipated that the users would want to get the latest updates as soon as they release and not opt out of getting them at all.

Given that Tesla repeatedly broke things in updates, they should have expected that users would refuse updates. If you've ever worked on production software, you'd know this. Users do not accept downgrades.

I think if they anticipated users opting out of updates they would have definitely written the software to force the update after a given period of time if they user did not schedule an update. IT professionals tend to now force updates on managed computers instead of allowing individual users to manage it as it was recognized that users were really bad at doing it themselves, and like any software there is always bugs that need to be fixed...

And new bugs which need to be avoided. IT professionals working on mission-critical systems generally PREVENT updates from happening on managed computers until they've verified that they're OK.

Tesla has had development and deployment practices which are frankly unacceptable for a mission-critical system. This is at the root of the problem here.

 

[neroden]

Also, as with any software, you don't own the software, only the license to use the software. This is why open source is so great, because your license to use also includes the license to tinker, change and maintain on your own. I would love a future version of an open platform Tesla where the software is open source

You do realize that much of the software *is* open source, and Tesla is simply violating the license? It's one of the more immoral things they've been doing.

 

[neroden]

If you can forward a copy of Tesla's vehicle software license agreement, I'd love to give it a read. Considering it doesn't seem to exist, that'll probably be difficult, though.

I've been through every byte of the firmware and every scrap of documentation I've been provided with. The only licenses I've been able to find anywhere: Apache 2.0; Artistic (OSS); BSD; GFDL (up to v1.3); GPL (up to v3); LGPL (up to v3). Included as part of the Debian-based base OS Tesla uses...

Please note that Tesla is violating the terms of *every one of these licenses*.

It would be a kindness if you notified the copyright holders. I don't have a full list of copyrght holders because I haven't gotten root on my car.

Tesla has had several years to comply with the very simple terms of the licenses, and has not. I suspect some of the copyright holders would like to get royalties, since their software has been pirated for profit by Tesla. Last I checked, IBM holds copyright in portions of the Linux kernel, and I'm sure they'd appreciate the income.

 

[182RG]

But I have NEVER even heard of one that actively discourages tinkering, or getting the most out of your vehicle.

A majority of forum members are VERY protective of the brand, of the cause, and of EM. It's more of a cult, than a car at various times. Don't you feel privileged driving it?

Tesla is anti-consumer in a lot of ways. Inconsistent customer service, thumbing their nose at Magnuson-Moss with deliberate lack of availability of service manuals, parts, and diagnostic tools.

 

[Odebek]

You do realize that much of the software *is* open source, and Tesla is simply violating the license? It's one of the more immoral things they've been doing.

In what way are they violating an open source license?

 

[msnow]

In what way are they violating an open source license?

According to this they aren't:
My adventures in gaining control of my car

 

[ecarfan]

You do realize that much of the software *is* open source, and Tesla is simply violating the license? It's one of the more immoral things they've been doing.

I disagree. In another thread @Doug_G posted this, quote:
----------------
You can write user space applications with no requirement to release the source code, because you are not extending Linux, you are writing code that runs on the operating system. Just likerunning Firefix on Windows doesn't make it part of Windows. It is no different whether you are running a desktop application or an embedded application.

For an explanation of these issues see Using GPL software in embedded applications | ZDNet
-----------------------------------

 

[ohmman]

You do realize that much of the software *is* open source, and Tesla is simply violating the license? It's one of the more immoral things they've been doing.

While we sort out whether or not Tesla really is violating the GPL terms (I side with @Doug_G and many embedded systems experts on this one and do not believe they are), what are the other "immoral" things they're doing?

 

[Max*]

I see where green1 is coming from; while I personally wouldn't do what he's doing, I agree with what he's trying to do.

Tesla should allow us to tinker with the car, Tesla should be more open to their updates, Tesla shouldn't be punishing us for not updating (don't know if that's what is happening to the OP, as someone mentioned upthread that the Google API changed), Tesla should have the repair manual available for sale for anyone to buy/look at/etc. (not just MA residents), Tesla should expand their repair shop process, etc. etc. etc.

This is an uphill battle and I wish the OP luck.

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I don't follow WHY "Tesla Should"

Tesla should allow us to tinker with the car, Tesla should be more open to their updates, Tesla should have the repair manual available for sale for anyone to buy/look at/etc. , Tesla should expand their repair shop process, etc. etc. etc.
​

Tesla is gathering data from a fleet and trying to add that data into an improved product. If Tinkerers were able to contaminate that stream, could those shift liability? Could one tinker back flow into another update?. Why would you want a horde of untrained mechanics tinkering with safety systems?

I just don't get Why Tesla Should. Tell me how this would be a good thing. I can't see it.

 

[bobjustbob]

Please note that Tesla is violating the terms of *every one of these licenses*.

It would be a kindness if you notified the copyright holders. I don't have a full list of copyrght holders because I haven't gotten root on my car.

Tesla has had several years to comply with the very simple terms of the licenses, and has not. I suspect some of the copyright holders would like to get royalties, since their software has been pirated for profit by Tesla. Last I checked, IBM holds copyright in portions of the Linux kernel, and I'm sure they'd appreciate the income.

As a software engineer who works for IBM and knows a great deal about our Open Source initiatives (primarily our work on Linux) I must say you are making quite a bit of noise about something you apparently know very little about.

 

[geoff79s]

I've been following this thread with great interest. It all boils down to the classic discussion of "owning" software and not so more the hardware that came with it. Apple has gotten some flack on this in the past. I think personally you choose this with buying a product. It's an evolving matter in how products will be delivered. Deal with the updates. I don't agree with the OP's view that "no hands on the weel" is taking away feature but it's debatable. If I compare it to Sony or Microsoft with their Playstation and Xbox consoles you can't even game online without updating the software. Some features get "enhanced" or "restricted" but a lot of new features get added too. Are they then also taking away functionality? Apple is removing the gun of their emoji with a squirt gun, should we complain?

With buying a Tesla as an early adopter we've also taken the risk that this product is yet to be in it's final form. And this is on the software and hardware side. What will we all do when Autopilot 2 arrives and it needs new hardware? Cry about less features?

Tesla is an evolving product still looking for the right set of features on a lot of levels, if adding new features might mean that some of them dissapear because of safety then this is something I accept. If you don't, I can only suggest Tesla is not the brand you're looking for.

 

[ohmman]

Apple has gotten some flack on this in the past.

And continues to do so. This is really the same discussion that has been going on in Apple forums about iOS for years. Some people choose to jailbreak their phones. Apple doesn't support them.

 

[Gizmotoy]

While we sort out whether or not Tesla really is violating the GPL terms (I side with @Doug_G and many embedded systems experts on this one and do not believe they are), what are the other "immoral" things they're doing?

From what we've seen so far, I don't think anyone's presented evidence they're violating GPL terms. And we have several users here pretty deep in the system whom I feel would be making some noise if they were.

I don't think "immoral" is necessarily the right word, but I do think they're falling on the wrong side of the repairability line by withholding service manuals. I think we're rapidly approaching the point where that protectionist stance will start causing problems for them. Especially given the fact that in many areas you have to wait several months to have even the most minor of issues addressed. Being able to visit a third-party shop would be appreciated. I think there'd probably be third-party shops specializing in Teslas already in areas where they have high density.

 

[Stoneymonster]

You lost me. What kind of cooperation?

Recalls don't magically take people's cars and fix them. The suggestion that a recall for a software upgrade that improves safety features would compel people to apply them (like @green1) is simply false. People would still be free to not get the car fixed, upgraded, whatever.

I think we're rapidly approaching the point where that protectionist stance will start causing problems for them. Especially given the fact that in many areas you have to wait several months to have even the most minor of issues addressed. Being able to visit a third-party shop would be appreciated. I think there'd probably be third-party shops specializing in Teslas already in areas where they have high density.

I agree, it's an interesting thought experiment too for this reason: Tesla has maintained that service will not be a profit center for them. By allowing third-party for-profit service, it sets up an interesting dichotomy between them and service providers. I'm not sure how that would play out.

 

[thecloud]

I find that perception rarely equates to reality, more FUD from those refusing to accept progress. If you aren't ready to adopt the advances, then opt out or sell your Tesla, it obviously wasn't meant for you.

I hear this repeated a lot in the forum, and it seems like an unnecessarily divisive thing to say. It should be possible to express disagreement with the way something works without being required to sell your car and get out of the ecosystem. It may be self-defeating and against "the greater good" for some folks to refuse updates, but I'm pretty sure they love driving their cars and want Tesla to get things right as much as we all do.

 

[Stoneymonster]

This becomes more and more difficult as cars become more connected and security risks. Not updating will soon be the equivalent of refusing security patches for Windows or MacOS. I'm sympathetic, but I think this is just the way things are going.

 

[msnow]

Recalls don't magically take people's cars and fix them. The suggestion that a recall for a software upgrade that improves safety features would compel people to apply them (like @green1) is simply false. People would still be free to not get the car fixed, upgraded, whatever.



I agree, it's an interesting thought experiment too for this reason: Tesla has maintained that service will not be a profit center for them. By allowing third-party for-profit service, it sets up an interesting dichotomy between them and service providers. I'm not sure how that would play out.

I think Tesla still has a way in as long as remote access is on. I know I get Navigon map updates without agreeing to it or even knowing I got it. Also one person who rooted their car had an unwanted firmware update magically installed on their car. I really think if regulators told Tesla to turn on full time nags or disable it they would do that without hesitation.

 

[Stoneymonster]

I think Tesla still has a way in as long as remote access is on. I know I get Navigon map updates without agreeing to it or even knowing I got it. Also one person who rooted their car had an unwanted firmware update magically installed on their car. I really think if regulators told Tesla to turn on full time nags or disable it they would do that without hesitation.

Yeah, probably.