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

[green1]

I don't think in this case doing anything to your property applies. Both voice recognition and maps (the one on the big screen) uses Google servers to function. So likely nothing changed in your car, but what may have changed is on the server side. A change to your property would be breaking something that works completely offline.

Do you have proof that voice recognition is a google product? considering that it is WAY behind any other google product on both feature set and accuracy, I find that unlikely, but I'm willing to entertain proof. I've always assumed it was something in house to Tesla, and always wished they would in fact use Google instead.

 

[ged]

I don't think in this case it applies. Both voice recognition and maps (the one on the big screen) uses Google servers to function. So likely nothing changed in your car, but what may have changed is on the server side. A change to your property would be breaking something that works completely offline.

I was referring to the suggestion that has been repeated here by some that users should be forced to update to whatever version Tesla deems they should run.

I'm aware that the changes that have broken those functions in my car are server side changes; alas there's no better way to make your user's (un)happy then to force them to choose which of two different sets of broken features. :\

 

[ohmman]

Aside from the shitty new UI, there is no new functionality or improvement for non-AP cars, so why would I want the upgrade?

8.0 should cure you.

 

[CuriousG]

8.0 should cure you.

Since I came in with 7.0, I never got to experience the speedometer of 6.x. I hope they bring that back but it's doubtful. Would only make sense to turn on the new UI when in AP mode.

 

[CmdrThor]

Tesla clearly does not view software features as being "your property" that you can retain no matter what you do. Please see this section of the Privacy and Legal page:

Our collection of Tesla vehicle data. If you no longer wish us to collect Telematics Log Data or any other data from your Tesla vehicle, please contact us as indicated in the "How to Contact Us" section below. Please note that, if you opt out from the collection of Telematics Log Data or any other data from your Tesla vehicle, we will not be able to notify you of issues applicable to your vehicle in real time, and this may result in your vehicle suffering from reduced functionality, serious damage, or inoperability, and it may also disable many features of your vehicle including periodic software and firmware updates, remote services, and interactivity with mobile applications and in-car features such as location search, Internet radio, voice commands, and web browser functionality.

While opting out of data collection isn't the same as opting out of firmware upgrades, there are definitely conditions placed on the software features available in your vehicle.

 

[green1]

Tesla clearly does not view software features as being "your property" that you can retain no matter what you do. Please see this section of the Privacy and Legal page:



While opting out of data collection isn't the same as opting out of firmware upgrades, there are definitely conditions placed on the software features available in your vehicle.

The passage you quoted does not support the assertion you made.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Do you have proof that voice recognition is a google product? considering that it is WAY behind any other google product on both feature set and accuracy, I find that unlikely, but I'm willing to entertain proof. I've always assumed it was something in house to Tesla, and always wished they would in fact use Google instead.

I'm only going by the Teslarati article. It's likely not a google product directly, but uses google APIs to do the searching.
Tesla Model S Voice Commands

 

[green1]

I'm only going by the Teslarati article. It's likely not a google product directly, but uses google APIs to do the searching.
Tesla Model S Voice Commands

They do not provide any source in that article, and considering how many people think the navigation is google when it's not, I certainly wouldn't take their word for it without some form of source.

 

[Odebek]

When I drove in the USA briefly the car never missed a single speed limit sign. In Canada it gets it right less than 50% of the time.

That sucks, I agree that Tesla should fix asap, and communicate that it recognizes the problem and is working on it.

As for selling my car, sure, show me a replacement car that has the same functionality as the Tesla and I'll swap in a heartbeat. It's the best car on the planet, it's unfortunate that the company behind it is so consumer hostile.

I think this is where people start to disagree with you. I think Tesla is serving the vast majority of consumers very well. The Model S is a closed system, just because you want it to be an open system doesn't mean Tesla is bad. I think if you can acknowledge that both open systems and close systems have value and appeal to different types of consumers, that we can all live in harmony.

Also, I will bet you $1000 that Atieva or Youxia or Thunder Power or Qiantu Motor or LeEco will do an open systems car for hobbyists & hackers to differentiate from Tesla. I think that is great, but I don't think that Tesla is evil because they didn't take that approach.

 

[Az_Rael]

I just wonder if the tone of this thread would be different if the update we were discussing was one in which Tesla went to 60 second "hands on wheel" nags as a result of the Florida crash. Or an update that geofences out everything but actual freeways.

 

[green1]

I don't think Tesla is evil because the car isn't open, I think Tesla is evil because they remove features or add limitations to existing features AFTER they sell you the car.

If they released a software update that limited the maximum speed of the car to 20km/hr or less at all times for safety reasons (pedestrian collisions are much more survivable at that speed btw) who here would say "that's fine, after all it's for safety, Tesla have a duty to make the car safer"? No, there'd be outrage, but really, it's no different than what they've already done. In both cases they altered the functioning of the product after it had been delivered such that it now provides less value to the purchaser. The difference is not a matter of action, only a matter of degree.

My position is simple, if you sell a product with a certain feature set, you can't retroactively remove or limit those features without permission of the person who bought it. I don't know anyone who wants to lose features they paid for after purchase, and to spend so much money with the risk that any feature could vanish at any moment is shear folly.

Many people ask why Tesla even gives the option of software updates instead of forcing them. My suspicion is that their lawyers told them they had to, because if they altered the functioning of the vehicle without input from the owner they'd lose any lawsuit brought their way. By being able to say "the owner installed the update willingly" they negate that argument. Unfortunately it also works this way in that I don't legally have to accept their changes, and they can't legally force them on me.

 

[msnow]

I don't think Tesla is evil because the car isn't open, I think Tesla is evil because they remove features or add limitations to existing features AFTER they sell you the car.

If they released a software update that limited the maximum speed of the car to 20km/hr or less at all times for safety reasons (pedestrian collisions are much more survivable at that speed btw) who here would say "that's fine, after all it's for safety, Tesla have a duty to make the car safer"? No, there'd be outrage, but really, it's no different than what they've already done. In both cases they altered the functioning of the product after it had been delivered such that it now provides less value to the purchaser. The difference is not a matter of action, only a matter of degree.

My position is simple, if you sell a product with a certain feature set, you can't retroactively remove or limit those features without permission of the person who bought it. I don't know anyone who wants to lose features they paid for after purchase, and to spend so much money with the risk that any feature could vanish at any moment is shear folly.

Many people ask why Tesla even gives the option of software updates instead of forcing them. My suspicion is that their lawyers told them they had to, because if they altered the functioning of the vehicle without input from the owner they'd lose any lawsuit brought their way. By being able to say "the owner installed the update willingly" they negate that argument. Unfortunately it also works this way in that I don't legally have to accept their changes, and they can't legally force them on me.

If a regulator directed Tesla to take an action they would have to do it whether we wanted them to or not.

 

[ohmman]

I don't think Tesla is evil because the car isn't open, I think Tesla is evil because they remove features or add limitations to existing features AFTER they sell you the car.

I respect your right to disagree with whatever the heck you want to disagree with. However, I feel like the word evil, used in this context, has a tendency to invalidate your otherwise cogent arguments.

First result I get for the definition is:

Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Really?

 

[green1]

A quick update as well,
I've heard back tonight from someone higher up the chain than anyone I've talked to before, and they say they're working with the engineers and will get back to me.

There may be hope yet.

As I said at the start of the thread, I hope that Tesla will still do the right thing here, and if they do, it will restore a lot of faith in the company for me.

 

[green1]

I respect your right to disagree with whatever the heck you want to disagree with. However, I feel like the word evil, used in this context, has a tendency to invalidate your otherwise cogent arguments.

First result I get for the definition is:

Evil: Profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Really?

Evil was the word used in the reply I was referring to, it was not a word of my own selection.

EDIT: I may be incorrect here, re-reading the post I was referring to the word is "bad", I thought I read "evil" the first time, either I was mistaken, or the original post has been edited. Either way, the sentiment stands that I was referring to what I thought had been said previously, and did not consciously chose the word myself.

 

[green1]

If a regulator directed Tesla to take an action they would have to do it whether we wanted them to or not.

I am not aware of any regulatory body requesting this change, as such I don't believe your point to be valid.

If Tesla is requested to do something by a regulatory body, my quarrel would not be with Tesla, but with that regulatory body. However they have shown in the past in other markets that when a regulatory body requests something, they do not make it optional. In addition to no record of any regulatory body requesting anything, the fact that the change was not mandatory speaks to it originating from Tesla, not from a regulatory body.

 

[ohmman]

Evil was the word used in the reply I was referring to, it was not a word of my own selection.

Since you didn't quote it, it escaped me. Still think it's best we reserve that term for those who deserve it. I wouldn't even classify VW as "evil" for their diesel deeds. Maybe I'm too stingy with the word.

 

[green1]

Since you didn't quote it, it escaped me. Still think it's best we reserve that term for those who deserve it. I wouldn't even classify VW as "evil" for their diesel deeds. Maybe I'm too stingy with the word.

I may be incorrect here, re-reading the post I was referring to the word is "bad", I thought I read "evil" the first time, either I was mistaken, or the original post has been edited. Either way, the sentiment stands that I was referring to what I thought had been said previously, and did not consciously chose the word myself.

That said, I think you may be a bit over sensitive to the word choice, my intention was more in line with the wikipedia version which states "Evil, in a general context, is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good"

 

[msnow]

I am not aware of any regulatory body requesting this change, as such I don't believe your point to be valid.

If Tesla is requested to do something by a regulatory body, my quarrel would not be with Tesla, but with that regulatory body. However they have shown in the past in other markets that when a regulatory body requests something, they do not make it optional. In addition to no record of any regulatory body requesting anything, the fact that the change was not mandatory speaks to it originating from Tesla, not from a regulatory body.

It was a hypothetical to your point that Tesla couldn't do something to the software without your consent. I wasn't saying this happened just that it could if they were directed to by a regulator but I'm reading this post to say you understand that.

 

[ohmman]

That said, I think you may be a bit over sensitive

Probably my evolutionary status. I'm still pretty primitive when it comes to language.