On the eve of possible holiday software updates tomorrow, and as I review the software releases portrayed in Post #1, it seems that the true pattern of software distribution may be less like an overly-simplistic schism of just two branches (see Scenario A in the imaginary diagram, below) as portrayed in Post #1, and perhaps more complicated (e.g., see purposely-exaggerated Scenario B, below). I’m just speculating without insider information, but separations and mergers of branches and sub-branches may occur due to national and regional regulations and to model-year hardware capabilities. And arbitrary management decisions (limiting the number or region of drivers testing a particular feature, for example) may also play a part.
Most pronounced is the obvious division between those (in the USA) testing (in red in the diagram below) and not testing (black) FSD Beta. After experiencing several FSD Beta versions it seems clear (to me) why Tesla could not and should not distribute FSD Beta to its entire customer base at this time. As I'm sure others have, I’ll re-state the obvious: in the wrong hands FSD Beta could and would be dangerous. (If anything, I wonder how it can be safely in use by as many test drivers as it apparently is.) Even after the safety score disappears from the Tesla App, are daily driving patterns still a factor in deciding when cars receive invitations to subsequent firmware updates?
But FSD aside, without access to all the facts and to Tesla’s operational plans, it can definitely be unclear (and hence frustrating) why certain cars seemingly advance through (non-FSD) software versions, while others do not. Is reliable, regular, extended access to healthy WiFi a factor? How critical is the computer hardware of the vehicle? How much of a part do governments play in determining who gets what? Also, keep in mind that some software versions offer few if any new features to particular models in particular areas. At the risk of stating the obvious, Tesla probably bypasses cars that just won't benefit.
In the long run I suspect that it is a cumulative combination of many general and specific factors that together determine whether a particular vehicle receives an invitation to upgrade its software at a particular time. Given the general factors--region, regulations, model, vehicle age, etc.--and Tesla's own internal management procedures, do we end up with a distribution pattern that looks somewhat more like Scenario B, below (with sub-branches and temporary "parking lots")?
Two hypothetical software distribution patterns.
Not shown: symbols (dots, circles, triangles, etc.)
on the lines indicating when software versions are
released in more-or-less sequential order over time
(flowing from top to bottom). The pattern in the table
in Post #1 looks most like Scenario A. I ponder here
whether something like Scenario B may be the more
accurate representation.
Most pronounced is the obvious division between those (in the USA) testing (in red in the diagram below) and not testing (black) FSD Beta. After experiencing several FSD Beta versions it seems clear (to me) why Tesla could not and should not distribute FSD Beta to its entire customer base at this time. As I'm sure others have, I’ll re-state the obvious: in the wrong hands FSD Beta could and would be dangerous. (If anything, I wonder how it can be safely in use by as many test drivers as it apparently is.) Even after the safety score disappears from the Tesla App, are daily driving patterns still a factor in deciding when cars receive invitations to subsequent firmware updates?
But FSD aside, without access to all the facts and to Tesla’s operational plans, it can definitely be unclear (and hence frustrating) why certain cars seemingly advance through (non-FSD) software versions, while others do not. Is reliable, regular, extended access to healthy WiFi a factor? How critical is the computer hardware of the vehicle? How much of a part do governments play in determining who gets what? Also, keep in mind that some software versions offer few if any new features to particular models in particular areas. At the risk of stating the obvious, Tesla probably bypasses cars that just won't benefit.
In the long run I suspect that it is a cumulative combination of many general and specific factors that together determine whether a particular vehicle receives an invitation to upgrade its software at a particular time. Given the general factors--region, regulations, model, vehicle age, etc.--and Tesla's own internal management procedures, do we end up with a distribution pattern that looks somewhat more like Scenario B, below (with sub-branches and temporary "parking lots")?
Two hypothetical software distribution patterns.
Not shown: symbols (dots, circles, triangles, etc.)
on the lines indicating when software versions are
released in more-or-less sequential order over time
(flowing from top to bottom). The pattern in the table
in Post #1 looks most like Scenario A. I ponder here
whether something like Scenario B may be the more
accurate representation.
. At least It'll be waiting for me, so that's awesome.
