Your points are not valid just like those who complain of the switch to 7.0. I am sure there are not only bug fixes in the new updates but changes due to legal scrutiny and such. There might be times when a version release might introduce new bugs, but to think your version is better than the current 7.1 100th revision is ridiculous.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Your points are not valid just like those who complain of the switch to 7.0. I am sure there are not only bug fixes in the new updates but changes due to legal scrutiny and such. There might be times when a version release might introduce new bugs, but to think your version is better than the current 7.1 100th revision is ridiculous.
I guess you should upgrade to a manufacture that doesn't have OTA updates.
It is better in the only way that matters to me.
And that makes it valid to me.
I don't honestly care if you think it's valid or not, I don't share the same priorities you do, and I don't find your opinion to be any more valid than my own.
And that makes it valid to me.
I don't honestly care if you think it's valid or not, I don't share the same priorities you do, and I don't find your opinion to be any more valid than my own.
I hope so. There are plenty of examples of people keeping old computer systems running, although I admit that few if any have to provide vehicle safety features.
We're all caught in an arms race and so it's difficult to keep your weapon of choice.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
But what you need is beyond the means of most of us on this site. My bluff glibness hides the fact that I'm just an armchair engineer.
Last edited:
Bingo! That's what it is. I would never in a million years even read an auto forum let alone be member.
Well said.
I own my car. I have a Certificate of Title for it. It is at my house, plugged into my charger. I can drive it anytime I want, anywhere I want. I call that "ownership". You apparently do not. We can agree to disagree.
In addition, in "my world" my car has improved significantly since I purchased it. Unlike any other car I have ever owned, my car now has many features that did not exist in my car when I bought it, features I find very useful in "my world".
There's an argument, but I would not call it a "good argument".
If you own a smartphone or a computer, do you insist on the right to access the OS and change it as you wish? Even if you are a high-level computer programmer who can hack into an OS and do whatever you want, by doing that you do not endanger the lives of other people in the same way that you would if you hacked into the OS in your Tesla and made changes and then took it out on public roads.
I say again, in all seriousness, that given you appear to have a deep philosophical disagreement with Tesla about the meaning of "car ownership", it may be time for you and Tesla to part ways and for you to sell your Model S and purchase a more conventional car, one which is frozen in time at the moment of purchase and will not change during your period of ownership.
jerjozwik
Active Member
JohnSnowNW
Active Member
This seems to be true, only you claim other's opinion to be less valid...despite posting a thread asking for them. When you respond with something like this:
...it sort of changes the tone of the thread. I think Tesla enthusiasts get enough of this thrown their way outside of the forum, and I don't think denigrating the people you are asking for help is particularly constructive.
I understand you dislike the nags and limits, but upgrading is probably beneficial (overall) for you and your fellow road warriors. I wish you luck finding a solution.
This discussion really is about the right to refuse updates. I think that "refusers" are relatively rare, but obviously they exist. The two reasons I've seen so far for refusal are:
In the case that a refuser is happy with their current version, should they be allowed to keep the car as-is? I think so, with the following caveats:
I believe Tesla should spell this out more clearly in their purchase agreement, and to owners at the time of purchase.
To the OP, I sympathize with your frustration. I can tell you value the fact that you have unrestricted AP based on the fact you've got it in your signature. It represents a source of pride, and it sucks to have that pulled away. That said, I think you'll find that the restrictions are probably less onerous than you're assuming, and the difference in actual functionality isn't all that great. And someday your fellow drivers may be thankful you took the update - if something unfortunate happens to you. Surely you've seen enough accidents in your line of work to respect that.
- Distaste for UI changes
- Loss of perceived functionality (lowering at speed, unfettered AP)
- Minimize service calls for firmware-resolved issues
- Simplify service by continuing the practice of upgrading all cars to the latest release
- Ensure all vehicles are on the safest version (for instance, AP "hold the wheel" requirements).
In the case that a refuser is happy with their current version, should they be allowed to keep the car as-is? I think so, with the following caveats:
- Understand that service quality is reduced
- Understand that support is no longer provided for that firmware version (you're on your own if parts don't work)
- In the case of a safety update, the owner should be required to receive the firmware.
I believe Tesla should spell this out more clearly in their purchase agreement, and to owners at the time of purchase.
To the OP, I sympathize with your frustration. I can tell you value the fact that you have unrestricted AP based on the fact you've got it in your signature. It represents a source of pride, and it sucks to have that pulled away. That said, I think you'll find that the restrictions are probably less onerous than you're assuming, and the difference in actual functionality isn't all that great. And someday your fellow drivers may be thankful you took the update - if something unfortunate happens to you. Surely you've seen enough accidents in your line of work to respect that.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
The root cause for the recent change in Google Maps functionality and it not working on older firmware versions is due to how Google updates tiles (specifically the web address and the SHA key). This was essentially an API functionality change.
Basically, Google broke something, and Tesla made an update via firmware that restored function. As much as I hate, REALLY HATE, some of the stuff Tesla does, this one was not on them.
Basically, Google broke something, and Tesla made an update via firmware that restored function. As much as I hate, REALLY HATE, some of the stuff Tesla does, this one was not on them.
If Transport Canada (our equivalent to the NHTSA) had mandated the update, it would have been a recall, and Tesla would have forced it (they have done exactly that in response to similar requests in other jurisdictions) I would not fight Tesla on that one, as it would have been out of their control.
That is not the case here. This was Tesla more concerned with their public image than with anything else. I have no responsibility to uphold their image, that's their job, not mine.
If something unfortunate happens to me, you'd better hope that the AP software was working right, and was not arbitrarily limited such that I ended up driving manually instead. In most cars something happening to the driver guarantees a crash. In a Tesla on autopilot it doesn't have to, arbitrary restrictions on AP make it less likely that it will be in use at any particular time, and more likely that the car is being driven in the less safe manual mode.
That is not the case here. This was Tesla more concerned with their public image than with anything else. I have no responsibility to uphold their image, that's their job, not mine.
If something unfortunate happens to me, you'd better hope that the AP software was working right, and was not arbitrarily limited such that I ended up driving manually instead. In most cars something happening to the driver guarantees a crash. In a Tesla on autopilot it doesn't have to, arbitrary restrictions on AP make it less likely that it will be in use at any particular time, and more likely that the car is being driven in the less safe manual mode.
I don't follow this logic, perhaps because I don't fully understand the difference between the versions. If you become unconscious in your vehicle, it will continue to drive until it crashes at speed - correct? Surely it will not safely drive until the battery dies. If you become unconscious in an updated AP vehicle, my understanding is that after a number of hold the wheel alerts, it will slow to a stop. Which of those outcomes is safer? And/or what am I missing?
You're missing that in the existing version it will still give the hold wheel alert at the next curve, and more importantly, that if it arbitrarily tells me that I can't use my AP at a certain speed on a certain road, I'll be driving manually, and not on AP in the first place. (hence less safe)
Tesla makes and sells cars for sustainable transportation, not as toys for hobbyists to tinker with.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
As opposed to driving more slowly as governed by AP in the first place?
I'm all for more liberty and less mindless regulation (see no-fly zones above that inadvertently ensnare a 200' cube over someone's home), but at some point you've got to consider, from a practical standpoint, the totality of the actual benefits and the actual risks.
I believe you will be happy enough with the latest version that you won't regret upgrading. From a practical perspective, anyway.
Plenty of time in future years after the cars get to Level 4 autonomy to delight in the flavor of Level 2 of your choice. Recognizing of course that it will be less safe than the latest and greatest, and yet still more safe than your neighbor's 1973 GMC Sprint.
I won't be a hazard driving 30km/hr under the speed limit just because the car thinks I should.
The speed limit recognition in this car is atrocious at best, it is not anywhere near reliable enough to be used to add limits to the speed you can use autopilot at.
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 know when my current or previous vehicles required a software update it happened when I took the vehicle in for service... It never occurred to me to learn what those updates were changing in the vehicle, my only assumption was that it was going to improve things. These could have been small things like engine timings, but it didn't really matter... it happened regardless of it being a decision on my part.
I kind of think it's strange that Tesla actually allows us to opt out of software updates, or delay when they occur to the point that users effectively don't have to update. As this is not how my ICE vehicles have worked, I got the update when it was available without having any say in the matter... Yes it required me taking the car in for service, which means the software updates did not happen frequently as is the case with a Tesla.
Older vehicles used belts or mechanical means for timing facets of the car but as ICE vehicles have modernized many of the internals are managed by computers now, that people can't regularly tinker with. I love teaching the low level material to my students and consider myself in that small group of people who sometimes enjoy modifying my operating system; however, the majority of the time I like to trust other developers...
A lot of new ICE vehicles are starting to come out that feature a lot of the same kind of technology as AP with different names. I think one of the reasons Tesla is willing to push the envelope on automated vehicle technology is that unlike other vehicle manufacturers it has a mechanism to roll out updates to their vehicles immediately with improved automation technology. This could be something as simple as being more aggressive in alerting the user that they are misusing the technology (such as hands off the wheel notices), or it could be something more critical such as improved radar analysis algorithms or more efficient/powerful decision making analysis to make the automation safer for the user. I highly doubt most traditional car companies with their "snail mail" approach to delivering updates to software will really be able to make significant strides... and mostly likely will require buying a new car with the software update vs them being able to push updates out OTA.
The biggest issue software developers have is always users, users tend to try and do things that developers didn't anticipate... and I think you fall into a category of user that they did not anticipate. 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. 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... many of the bugs might be considered a feature as the OP seems to see the older software; however, there could be bugs that haven't been realized that could result in early drive unit failure, early battery failure, or making the vehicle easier to exploit and remotely control.
I kind of think it's strange that Tesla actually allows us to opt out of software updates, or delay when they occur to the point that users effectively don't have to update. As this is not how my ICE vehicles have worked, I got the update when it was available without having any say in the matter... Yes it required me taking the car in for service, which means the software updates did not happen frequently as is the case with a Tesla.
Older vehicles used belts or mechanical means for timing facets of the car but as ICE vehicles have modernized many of the internals are managed by computers now, that people can't regularly tinker with. I love teaching the low level material to my students and consider myself in that small group of people who sometimes enjoy modifying my operating system; however, the majority of the time I like to trust other developers...
A lot of new ICE vehicles are starting to come out that feature a lot of the same kind of technology as AP with different names. I think one of the reasons Tesla is willing to push the envelope on automated vehicle technology is that unlike other vehicle manufacturers it has a mechanism to roll out updates to their vehicles immediately with improved automation technology. This could be something as simple as being more aggressive in alerting the user that they are misusing the technology (such as hands off the wheel notices), or it could be something more critical such as improved radar analysis algorithms or more efficient/powerful decision making analysis to make the automation safer for the user. I highly doubt most traditional car companies with their "snail mail" approach to delivering updates to software will really be able to make significant strides... and mostly likely will require buying a new car with the software update vs them being able to push updates out OTA.
The biggest issue software developers have is always users, users tend to try and do things that developers didn't anticipate... and I think you fall into a category of user that they did not anticipate. 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. 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... many of the bugs might be considered a feature as the OP seems to see the older software; however, there could be bugs that haven't been realized that could result in early drive unit failure, early battery failure, or making the vehicle easier to exploit and remotely control.
I am also on 6.x. Voice recog has not worked in a couple of weeks and I have not bothered to check it in the last week to see if it now does. Maps are fine.
The only other issue I have had for a long while is no remote app can unlock the car. Every other remote function works except "unlock".
As I have been a Tesla owner for about 3 years, I remain convinced that Tesla believes they are the boss of my car, and I am just the owner.
Odebek
Don't Panic
Did you even read my post, in context of the conversation? My entire point was software limitations for the whole of society outweighs the inconvenience for an individual. 99.9% of pilots could easily fly drones within a no-fly zone without causing any issue, just like 99.9% of Tesla drivers could have used the 7.0 version of AP safely, but the 0.1% that would behave irresponsibly would ruin it for everyone.
To answer your accusations directly:
1) I am not in the no-fly zone, I am outside of it, but DJIs software thinks i am in it.
2) I am not just registered, I have a section 333 exemption from the FAA for commercial UAV operation.
theslimshadyist
Active Member
Similar threads
