smsprague
Member
I agree 100% but unfortunately I upgraded my non AP Tesla. I now have a big red car in the middle of the dash that does nothing. I am told it shows brake lights but with the car being red I can not tell. Still a great car though.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
I agree 100% but unfortunately I upgraded my non AP Tesla. I now have a big red car in the middle of the dash that does nothing. I am told it shows brake lights but with the car being red I can not tell. Still a great car though.
We all must comply with (or risk the consequences of not complying with) applicable laws. I have not now, nor have I ever, suggested that Tesla should break any laws.
I don't believe that this is really related at all to the current situation though, and thought that it would be obvious that a legal request from a regulatory authority would have to be viewed from a different perspective.
There are many things in life which I would not normally do, which I would have to do if requested by the appropriate authorities. Simple example, if I'm driving home and some random person jumps out on the street in front of me waving at me, I'll probably drive around them and keep going. If they're a police officer in uniform I'll comply with their directions because they have the legal authority to request that of me.
Same here, Tesla requests I add limitations or remove functionality, and I'll "drive around them", Transport Canada requests the same and I'll comply with their directions because they have the legal authority to request that.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
The navigation clearly is not, but the maps clearly uses Google. Its not a bad guess that they also use Google search and Google's voice api.
However, whether they use Google or not is actually not that important to the comment I made. The point has more to do with whether it is server side or client side (built into the car). I'm pretty sure the voice commands do not work if there is no internet connection. For example from this thread here:
Voice Command not working
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Given the doubt about Teslarati as a source, I dug back to an older thread about Model S voice control to try to find a better source.from the website that thought Pokemon Go on Model S was a real thing?
Here's a quote with JB saying that they would be using Google Voice in the Model S:
"The console also doesn't support voice control. So you can't press a button and tell it to dial a phone number for you or change the channel. Tesla's chief technology officer, J.B. Straubel, said the company plans to add voice control using Google Voice, but it's not available at launch. And sorry, iPhone fans, the company doesn't yet plan to support the new hands-free capabilities Apple (AAPL) is adding to its Siri feature."
People who attended Tesla events had confirmation that the voice function uses Google Voice:
Model S Voice Control
Again, not absolutely critical to my point, but Tesla does appear to be using Google voice recognition.
Last edited:
Car definitely uses Google's Voice recognition API...
Edit: This script is actually depreciated (Google disabled API v1 at some point), and has since been incorporated into the car software with Google's latest API... but still uses Google.
Code:
#!/bin/bash
gst-launch -v \
alsasrc num-buffers=600 device=tdm1_slot_12_rec \! \
audio/x-raw-int,rate=8000,channels=1,width=16 \! \
amrnbenc \! \
filesink location=/tmp/vrcap.amr
curl \
"http://www.google.com/speech-api/v1/recognize?lang=en-us&client=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" \
--header "Content-Type: audio/amr; rate=8000" \
--data-binary @/tmp/vrcap.amr \
-o /tmp/vrcap.dat
sed -e 's/.*utterance":"\([^"]*\).*/\1/' </tmp/vrcap.dat >/tmp/vrcap.txtEdit: This script is actually depreciated (Google disabled API v1 at some point), and has since been incorporated into the car software with Google's latest API... but still uses Google.
thecloud
As rhythm raced inside, the ship came alive
Also, this has happened before. In April 2013 a backward-incompatible change was made to the Google Voice API, causing it to not work with Tesla firmware 4.2 and earlier (voice commands were a new feature in 4.0). The fix was apparently in 4.4 or later, based on the dates of the releases in the firmware wiki.
Did 4.4 include any reduction in functionality vs 4.2? if not, then it was a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem to release a new firmware with a fix for the problem.
My issue isn't Tesla releasing updates and fixes. My issue is with Tesla retroactively removing functionality.
I have made it quite clear to Tesla, that at the end of all of this I don't care what firmware version I'm on. I can be on whatever number they chose as long as I have all the functionality that I had when I bought the car (if they want to add extra functionality as well, that's up to them, they have no obligation to do so, nor are they prohibited from doing so)
Someone here said this issue is divisive. Actually it is not. Far from it.
An issue is divisive only if you have an even split or close to it. You can even argue a 70-30 split is divisive in some way.
In this case though it is more like 95-5. Far from being divisive.
I really hope that Tesla comes back and officially tells OP, take it or leave it. Spending resources to please a fringe group, probably less 1%, so that they can drive any speed they like on roads AP does poorly - a feature that Tesla soon realized that is unsafe and hence fixed it - is ridiculous.
An issue is divisive only if you have an even split or close to it. You can even argue a 70-30 split is divisive in some way.
In this case though it is more like 95-5. Far from being divisive.
I really hope that Tesla comes back and officially tells OP, take it or leave it. Spending resources to please a fringe group, probably less 1%, so that they can drive any speed they like on roads AP does poorly - a feature that Tesla soon realized that is unsafe and hence fixed it - is ridiculous.
I think it would have been a lot different had green1 simply been more careful with his accusations. The overall negative tone of the post led the entire thing into a downward spiral. He spoke about it before he really knew what was going on.
He also came across in a manner that seemed excessively self important, and readers don't like that. It's hard to have empathy with someone who comes across as excessive in their demands.
It's a bit unfortunate because he was spot on regarding his concern about how the autopilot restriction was implemented. It was a piss poor implementation on the part of Tesla. That no matter how much of a fan someone is of Tesla there is no denying the speed limit recognition needs some serious tweaking. For Tesla to link that with AP was just awful.
My own response was just to say he was being unrealistic about expecting connected feature to still work, but gave him support in continuing his fight against the ridiculous implementation of the AP road type limitation. I don't think that feature did much good anyways. It's one of those things that probably caused more harm than good.
In his other thread I'm fully supportive of his efforts at least in terms of words and popcorn.
No, No, no…
See WK057 is worth 100 of us. So if you assume that's the case then it is divisive.
But, more seriously I do expect Tesla to come back and tell the OP that there wasn't anything intentional about it. But, that they can't support an old version of firmware. So he'll have to live with limitations of internet connected features not working or accept the firmware upgrade.
With that being said I believe Tesla will modify the existing AP limitation mechanism to fix it. It will probably land in the V8.0 upgrade. The current implementation simply does not work right. I don't even use AP on undivided roads and even i know it won't work right because of how many times it screws up the speed limit recognition.
In the end I think he would have been better off accepting the update way back when it came out, and then just totally annoyed the Tesla service with email after email about where it didn't work right. That's more my style. Just nag someone until they fix it.
wilheldp
Member
That is interesting. It seems like Tesla should be able to program visual recognition software that never misses a speed limit sign as long as the camera resolution is capable of reading it. As for the lane lines, if the lines are there, AP does fine. But I went through a few construction zones (hands ALWAYS on the wheel through them) that had double markings, offset markings, no markings, etc. There was always a car in front, but AP got confused very quickly in those situations. My boss also went on a road trip last week, and he said the only problem he had with AP the whole trip was the lane lines drifting near an off ramp causing the car to drift out of its lane.
I know you weren't referencing me, but you did quote me in this post...I never suggested you sell your car. I am just genuinely interested in why your car was having speed limit issues when I had not experienced that.
CmdrThor
Active Member
What about it did you not understand? If you opt out of data collection, features of the car may be disabled. Therefore you don't have a permanent unconditional right to the software features of your car like you have been asserting.
I did not opt out of data collection, therefore a paragraph about what happens if I do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
CmdrThor
Active Member
You are also asserting that the warranty of the car guarantees all features that shipped with the car will function no matter what you do. That is a false assertion as you are clearly experiencing.
Bugs too? What if the functionality green1 thought was a feature happened to be a bug? Which in this case clearly Tesla thought it is.
Established warranty law directly contradicts your claim, otherwise manufacturers would use it to get out of fixing things all the time.
And I didn't say "no matter what you do" obviously if I break something, that's not covered by warranty, but if something stops working through inaction on my part, that is expressly covered.
CmdrThor
Active Member
Sounds like you will need to file a lawsuit against Tesla then. Good luck with your endeavor.
While I do believe that I am legally in the right, I also believe lawsuits should always be a last resort, not a first choice.
Similar threads
