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

[ohmman]

While I strongly disagree with @Topher's aggressive verbiage, I think the truth is there in the last post. The disagreement is not warranty based. It's solely about delivered vs. promised functionality. The latest version delivers on voice and maps, but according to the OP, does not deliver on his interpretation of the AP as-promised. In this case, the as-promised portion is based on advertising material at the time, I'm assuming. I haven't seen any contracts that stipulate the vehicle's technical functionality. I could be wrong, though.

 

[sillydriver]

While I strongly disagree with @Topher's aggressive verbiage, I think the truth is there in the last post. The disagreement is not warranty based. It's solely about delivered vs. promised functionality. The latest version delivers on voice and maps, but according to the OP, does not deliver on his interpretation of the AP as-promised. In this case, the as-promised portion is based on advertising material at the time, I'm assuming. I haven't seen any contracts that stipulate the vehicle's technical functionality. I could be wrong, though.

I don't think that's quite it. It's that Tesla completed a sale of a car to green1, where that car then belonged to green1. One of the things it came with that he really likes about his car is its hands-off capability. Now voice control, etc., has gone wrong and Tesla says they'll fix it, implicitly under warranty, but they are going to remove the unrelated thing he likes at the same time.

Now consider XYZ car company, which sells you their car. It came with a nice radio, which you really enjoy listening to. Then the shock absorber fails and XYZ says they will repair it under warranty, but they are going to remove the nice radio from your car at the same time. They decided that listening to radio can distract drivers, so for your own good (and theirs, in an effort to reduce their liability exposure) they are going to pull your radio from your car.

Not too happy, are you.

 

[ohmman]

Now consider XYZ car company, which sells you their car. It came with a nice radio, which you really enjoy listening to. Then the shock absorber fails and XYZ says they will repair it under warranty, but they are going to remove the nice radio from your car at the same time. They decided that listening to radio can distract drivers, so for your own good (and theirs, in an effort to reduce their liability exposure) they are going to pull your radio from your car.

A more appropriate analogy would be that they made it so that the scan feature on my radio stopped working. The radio continued to work.

I get your point, and it's a deeper discussion about software vs. hardware. Let's get into that...

 

[Az_Rael]

Now consider XYZ car company, which sells you their car. It came with a nice radio, which you really enjoy listening to. Then the shock absorber fails and XYZ says they will repair it under warranty, but they are going to remove the nice radio from your car at the same time. They decided that listening to radio can distract drivers, so for your own good (and theirs, in an effort to reduce their liability exposure) they are going to pull your radio from your car.

Not too happy, are you.

How about a Tesla-centric hypothetical example that more people might relate to.

Tesla releases firmware version 8.0 This firmware update includes lots of UI changes and other cool improvements, but geofences out non-divided highways from Autosteer all together to limit Tesla's exposure and liability (not a change directed by a regulator). If you upgrade, you can now only use Autosteer on divided highways that are in Tesla's geofence list. So you refuse the upgrade. Several firmware updates down the road, your voice control and maps stop working (features the car was advertised as including). All the while, your car is under warranty. When you take it in, the only fix you are offered is to upgrade to the new firmware and lose the Autosteer functionality.

I would imagine if Tesla does end up implementing more restrictions on AP due to the recent press and investigations, that many people will choose to refuse to update and will find themselves in the OP's situation. It is a conundrum, as with older traditional cars, the software wasn't normally dependent on 3rd party services, so if you didn't want an upgrade, you just didn't get one and your car continued to work as it did when you bought it. Even if they stop selling map updates for my Volt, I can drive it forever with the existing map and it will be fine. I suppose eventually they might stop supporting the Onstar in my car, and I lose remote start ability but that is a separate paid service, and was advertised that way. Also, I am sure I would be refunded my Onbstar subscription costs if Chevy decided to suddenly not support my vehicle anymore.

Overall, I think it is problematic and will probably bite Tesla as soon as they remove or restrict a feature significantly that many owners do not want restricted. Especially if it isn't directed by regulators for Tesla to do so.

 

[green1]

I don't think "software vs hardware" is relevant.

How you deliver on a feature is irrelevant. you can't move a feature to software and then suddenly claim that makes everything different and you're no longer liable. What was sold was the feature, not the implementation of it.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I don't think "software vs hardware" is relevant.

How you deliver on a feature is irrelevant. you can't move a feature to software and then suddenly claim that makes everything different and you're no longer liable. What was sold was the feature, not the implementation of it.

It's not even really a feature, though, is it? Since launch they've clearly stated you need to keep your hands on the wheel. The car assists you in steering while your hands are on the wheel. That's the feature. The implementation of that has changed in that they've become more strict in holding you to that requirement.

So by your own logic, that Tesla sold the feature not the implementation, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[green1]

Feature is what it does and how it behaves for the user, it's the entirety of what the user can see or do with it.
implementation is the magic that happens behind the scenes to make it do what it does.

You can change the implementation all you want and I won't care. But touching the features without my permission is illegal, and I will fight it.

What you are talking about is the description of the feature, not the feature itself.

 

[Wombledon]

If you don't allow the software to be updated, I wonder if your insurers could avoid a claim in the future. If in doubt, I would declare this fact to your insurers - I suspect you may get a nasty surprise in terms of increased premium or they may seek to terminate your cover and pay you back the balance of the premium for the remainder of the year....

 

[mtndrew1]

How does this feature set compare to what you were sold in writing when buying the car? Was there a specific element of the newer firmware that contradicts the feature(s) you were sold or that were presented on Tesla's website?

I had an early iPod (2001-ish) and at some point in its life it received a firmware update that reduced its maximum volume by some 10% or more because it exceeded a safety parameter in EU testing in regards to hearing loss. The device's capability was substantially changed but Apple had never advertised a given maximum dB, just that it would give me x number of songs in my pocket, sync to my computer, etc. It continued to do those things. I had no evidence that they had ever advertised a given max dB. Yet, the device was now different and could not do what it did before.

Did Tesla advertise a feature that you have/had in 7.0 that is now gone in 7.1? Not that you asked for my opinion so feel free to round-file it, but as a consumer in a world where devices regularly change after purchase (my garage door opener gets firmware updates...) I only expect to retain the advertised features presented to me when I bought the item. When Nest removed an advertised feature from my smoke detectors (wave to silence) they compensated me with cash, which is what made it right for me. When they changed the behavior of my thermostat's auto-away function through firmware it made the device less desirable for me, yet it continues to do exactly what I was sold in writing/advertising and I feel I don't have a leg to stand on in regards to restitution.

 

[davidc18]

I'm with Green1 on this and have been since 7.1 rolled out. We own the car and can do whatever we please with it.

 

[davidc18]

The nags are a secondary, and admittedly less important, problem to the green1's main concern. And the main concern isn't really a removal of a feature...it's more of a limitation imposed on a feature. There did not used to be a limit to how fast you could operate on Autopilot. With 7.1, Autopilot was limited to 5 mph over the speed limit on non-divided highways and secondary roads. Green1 has stated that the speed limits on many roads that he uses on a daily basis are not properly picked up by the AP sensors, which would cause AP to either not work, or drive at a speed so low it would be unsafe.

The whole situation could be resolved with Tesla doing a better job of speed limit recognition, or some sort of effective appeal process where speed limit discrepancies can be reported by owners and fixed in the AP system in a timely manner.

This post sums it up very well.

 

[qwk]

The problem here is that Tesla acts like it's their car. The only solution is contacting NADA, and getting on the side of dealerships. If enough Tesla owners do this, this nonsense will stop. Tesla shouldn't be able to sell cars as a manufacturer, if they are going to pull stunts like this.

 

[sillydriver]

How does this feature set compare to what you were sold in writing when buying the car? Was there a specific element of the newer firmware that contradicts the feature(s) you were sold or that were presented on Tesla's website?

I think that whether the feature Tesla wants to remove was sold in writing or was on the website is a red herring: it's irrelevant. The point is once again the owner's property rights. It's up to the owner to determine what he or she values about their property. Change the radio example so that car company XYZ says they will repair your broken shock absorber under warranty but will at the same time remove the gaudy hood ornament that came with the car, and which you happen to really enjoy having. They will remove it because doing so slightly reduces the probability of skewering a pedestrian and hence their liability exposure, even though doing so is not required by the regulators. The point is that even though XYZ never advertised the ornament, and anyone with good taste would welcome being rid of the it, it is nevertheless your gaudy ornament on your car, and you value it. I believe that to refuse to fix your shock absorber without intruding on your property in this way is effectively non-performance of their warranty obligation to fix your shock without damaging unrelated aspects of your car.

 

[bonnie]

I think that whether the feature Tesla wants to remove was sold in writing or was on the website is a red herring: it's irrelevant. The point is once again the owner's property rights. It's up to the owner to determine what he or she values about their property. Change the radio example so that car company XYZ says they will repair your broken shock absorber under warranty but will at the same time remove the gaudy hood ornament that came with the car, and which you happen to really enjoy having. They will remove it because doing so slightly reduces the probability of skewering a pedestrian and hence their liability exposure, even though doing so is not required by the regulators. The point is that even though XYZ never advertised the ornament, and anyone with good taste would welcome being rid of the it, it is nevertheless your gaudy ornament on your car, and you value it. I believe that to refuse to fix your shock absorber without intruding on your property in this way is effectively non-performance of their warranty obligation to fix your shock without damaging unrelated aspects of your car.

Does your example change if the gaudy hood ornament was so connected to your broken shock absorber, that replacing the shock absorber with the new improved model meant the gaudy hood ornament was history?

Software is not separate components, like you use in your example. A new release is the product of a build - it's not little standalone items like a hood ornament would be.

 

[bonnie]

The problem here is that Tesla acts like it's their car. The only solution is contacting NADA, and getting on the side of dealerships. If enough Tesla owners do this, this nonsense will stop. Tesla shouldn't be able to sell cars as a manufacturer, if they are going to pull stunts like this.

Hah. You should read the EULAs for those manufacturers. You think Tesla is heavy handed?

Just one of many examples: GM, Ford and Others say you don't own your car, you just license it I don't think the dealerships are going to help you here.

 

[sillydriver]

Does your example change if the gaudy hood ornament was so connected to your broken shock absorber, that replacing the shock absorber with the new improved model meant the gaudy hood ornament was history?

Software is not separate components, like you use in your example. A new release is the product of a build - it's not little standalone items like a hood ornament would be.

If the thing XYZ wanted to remove was part of the suspension, where it was necessary to remove it to fix the shock, then my conclusion changes. But eliminating the nag-free aspect of green1's car is most certainly not a necessary part of fixing the voice control in his car. Tesla has bundled the two together in customer builds for their own convenience, but that's not green1's problem. I think those who have rooted the car have discovered that nags are easily toggled off. Tesla can easily provide green1 with a build that is identical to the current build except that the toggle is off, in order not to break the nag-freeness that green1 values in the car he owns. In fact I have little doubt that Elon's and other Tesla executives' cars are provided with just such a build, so it is trivially easy for Tesla to provide it to green1. So the hood ornament is not connected to the shock absorber.

 

[Trunk Gap]

I just want to know - do I do the upgrade that the car is telling me to do or not? What benefits will I get?
Just popped up today to update. Just got the car a week ago, not well versed in this stuff yet.

 

[Trunk Gap]

I just want to know - do I do the upgrade that the car is telling me to do or not? What benefits will I get?
Just popped up today to update. Just got the car a week ago, not well versed in this stuff yet.

Brand new P90DL. Is this a new update, or was the car just not up to date? Is there a way to see the version?

 

[green1]

Updating is your choice entirely. For you in this case you will most likely see bio difference between the 2 versions, however there new version probably had minor bug fixes and such which may be good.
That said, I tend to take a more cautious approach, and wait for others to update to see if Tesla has made any changes I might disagree with before taking there plunge. I have no need to be on the bleeding edge.

 

[green1]

Brand new P90DL. Is this a new update, or was the car just not up to date? Is there a way to see the version?

These updates appear frequently, sometimes daily, so it doesn't mean your car wasn't up to date. It means Tesla's is making rapid changes, you can argue if that's good or bad.