Unhappy with FSD sales and pricing

[MP3Mike]

What frustrates me is that Tesla deems the FSD beta safe enough for Youtube influencers,

People keep saying this, but most of the people that got the FSD beta, didn't even have Youtube accounts, or at least not active ones, when they got access. (Most of them were involved in their local Tesla Owner's club. And those people have direct access to Tesla management, so that makes sense.)

 

[K1Woods]

People keep saying this, but most of the people that got the FSD beta, didn't even have Youtube accounts, or at least not active ones, when they got access. (Most of them were involved in their local Tesla Owner's club. And those people have direct access to Tesla management, so that makes sense.)

are you sure about that? seems like social media is a public showcase for progress. I like the transparency but one could argue, if its that limited maybe they should have gone employee only. Now that its out & on display of course everyone wants it, especially those who paid thousands of dollars for it - betting on the future.

 

[Silicon Desert]

are you sure about that? seems like social media is a public showcase for progress.

Mike is precisely correct. Only a tiny number of people testing the FSD beta 9 have active Youtube accounts. I know this for certain.

 

[Microterf]

Use Small Claims Court. No attorneys, no big costs. In many locales, the dispute limit is more than the cost of FSD. And it is a carve-out from the binding arbitration agreement if you didn't opt-out.

So pretty please, try suing in SCC and report back here your results. Personally, I don't think your case is a winner based on your purchase agreement and the clear caveats on all FSD materials (subject to "software validation"), but if one person wins a case like this (along with the court's reasoning), a plethora of such cases will get Tesla management's attention pretty quickly.

I'm not going to sue them, I just want fsd beta. In the agreement, it says Tesla covers all arbitration costs, so there's only the time invested from my end.

Since Elon is their sole PR department, it makes sense to use his tweets as evidence.

 

[Daniel in SD]

What frustrates me is that Tesla deems the FSD beta safe enough for Youtube influencers, which one could argue could be more damaging than releasing to sensible FSD owners. Owners willing to accept liability for its faults to improve the software. Many of us are engineers and quality analysts for petes sake.

They're probably still trying to determine how safe it is. Obviously the very limited public beta is for marketing purposes as well.
If they do a wide release there will be accidents so presumably they're going to try to have a statistical argument that it prevents accidents overall (like they do with Autopilot).

 

[K1Woods]

People keep saying this, but most of the people that got the FSD beta, didn't even have Youtube accounts, or at least not active ones, when they got access. (Most of them were involved in their local Tesla Owner's club. And those people have direct access to Tesla management, so that makes sense.)

Don't get me wrong - I think those with access and youtube videos have done a amazing job - they seem to be responsible with it. I just feel if Tesla is confident enough to have youtube videos out there of non-employees using it, then they should have confidence expanding the "walled garden" to those interested in helping to test & evaluate responsibly. AP is still beta as well.

 

[Microterf]

Don't get me wrong - I think those with access and youtube videos have done a amazing job - they seem to be responsible with it. I just feel if Tesla is confident enough to have youtube videos out there of non-employees using it, then they should have confidence expanding the "walled garden" to those interested in helping to test & evaluate responsibly. AP is still beta as well.

Exactly this. They've already proven that they aren't taking any liability for AP/FSD crashes, so the responsibility is on the owner.

I'm fine with that, but we PAID for these features as they're released. The biggest problem I have is that they added these youtube influencers after the fact because they begged and got Elon's attention. DirtyTesla, now David Lee are 2 that I can think of off the top of my head. I love both of their channels, so I'm not hating on them at all, but it definitely appears to be a case of the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[Cheburashka]

Don't get me wrong - I think those with access and youtube videos have done a amazing job - they seem to be responsible with it. I just feel if Tesla is confident enough to have youtube videos out there of non-employees using it, then they should have confidence expanding the "walled garden" to those interested in helping to test & evaluate responsibly. AP is still beta as well.

I think Tesla knows it's unsafe so they release the limited beta to a small amount of people in order to avoid negative publicity after the inevitable crashes that would occur if they were to release this wide. It also serves the marketing purpose of creating illusion of real progress being made when really they are just incremental improvements without any major improvement in safety.

 

[chengka]

Perhaps its just a shrewd marketing campaign. Sort of a bury them in BS, but more like "tell them this beta is the real deal, just wait a little longer". AP is substandard, they know it, but they want to extract as much from each customer as possible and promises of a self driving car are all part of the echo chamber. Buyer beware.

 

[JHCCAZ]

Perhaps its just a shrewd marketing campaign. Sort of a bury them in BS, but more like "tell them this beta is the real deal, just wait a little longer". AP is substandard, they know it, but they want to extract as much from each customer as possible and promises of a self driving car are all part of the echo chamber. Buyer beware.

Well, I have a very different take on the phenomenon of watching FSD develop via YouTube. While i don't defend many aspects of the pricing and licensing model, I can't see it as a BS marketing campaign. It's actually quite an unusual open window into the development of a major non-open-source project:

(post extract from Waymo thread

...It's not like Tesla is being unduly secretive, though that seems to be a common implication here. The whole YouTube FSD beta paradigm is a surprisingly open look into their unfinished product, for better or worse. They are giving everyone, including competitors and some extremely ardent & tireless critics, every chance to see the good (often flying by at 5x or so) and plenty of the bad with detailed discussion, retries and frustrations. I'm not sure I've seen anything quite like it since the live coverage of the early US space program, and that was no private enterprise.

 

[K1Woods]

To be honest, I think monitored city streets is pretty good and would work really well on the roads I drive each day (suburbs of philly - rural open roads with clear markings). Would I use it in congested traffic - downtown Philly or in NYC - Times Square - not right now. Just as today, I will disengage AP where I don't feel comfortable. So, my personal expectation level is Level 3 - City Streets AP.

I think it'll take quite a bit of time, confidence, comfort, road traffic standards & regulations to get beyond that. I also think, (my opinion) that the cameras and computer will need some upgrades as well. Hopefully we see a unmanned drive at some point.

 

[rxlawdude]

I'm not going to sue them, I just want fsd beta. In the agreement, it says Tesla covers all arbitration costs, so there's only the time invested from my end.

Since Elon is their sole PR department, it makes sense to use his tweets as evidence.

I think you need to read up on arbitration. Tesla pays, and if the arbitration company wants repeat business...

That and you will be up against attorneys. If you win, you may be subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Not wise in my view. Take the SCC winnings and buy FSD when it's ready.

 

[Daniel in SD]

I think you need to read up on arbitration. Tesla pays, and if the arbitration company wants repeat business...

That and you will be up against attorneys. If you win, you may be subject to a confidentiality agreement.

Not wise in my view. Take the SCC winnings and buy FSD when it's ready.

People have won in arbitration against Tesla (screen yellowing issue) so it’s not impossible.
It seems like people who bought when ”automatic driving on city streets” was promised “this year” would have pretty good shot.

 

[Microterf]

I haven't heard back from them after the last reply I sent (their reply to my initial email was within 2 hours)

I'll keep you guys posted on any responses I get.

 

[rxlawdude]

People have won in arbitration against Tesla (screen yellowing issue) so it’s not impossible.
It seems like people who bought when ”automatic driving on city streets” was promised “this year” would have pretty good shot.

A demonstrable physical manufacturing defect vs what you consider an empty promise.

Hardly the same thing, but Godspeed!

 

[Daniel in SD]

A manufacturing defect vs what you consider an empty promise.

Hardly the same thing, but Godspeed!

I'm just saying the system is completely rigged against customers. It just seems like if something is promised "this year" and it still hasn't been delivered years later it might be possible to win in arbitration.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'm just saying the system is completely rigged against customers. It just seems like if something is promised "this year" and it still hasn't been delivered years later it might be possible to win in arbitration.

People won $20-280 in a class action for AP 2.0, but that had a more concrete suggested date for feature parity (December 2016) and didn't have the language about regulators and software validation. Not sure how well it will go in arbitration though. I do wonder why the class action then didn't take up the issue of FSD (or maybe it did already, I didn't follow the details, but it seemed more related to the AP features).

 

[rxlawdude]

I'm just saying the system is completely rigged against customers. It just seems like if something is promised "this year" and it still hasn't been delivered years later it might be possible to win in arbitration.

And I'm just saying, instead of kvetching about it, go to Small Claims Court and get your FSD money back. Then buy it when you think it meets your need.

But make sure you report the court's verdict and reasoning here.

 

[rxlawdude]

People won $20-280 in a class action for AP 2.0, but that had a more concrete suggested date for feature parity (December 2016) and didn't have the language about regulators and software validation. Not sure how well it will go in arbitration though. I do wonder why the class action then didn't take up the issue of FSD (or maybe it did already, I didn't follow the details, but it seemed more related to the AP features).

You guys do realize that class actions are explicitly forbidden in the arbitration agreement, and the US Supreme Court (at least in the employment law context) has upheld such language. Right? The moral of the story: use the only other alternative to binding arbitration: Small Claims Court.

The language:

"The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla, and may not consolidate claims without the consent of all parties. The arbitrator​

cannot hear class or representaive claims or requests for relief on behalf of others purchasing or leasing Tesla vehicles. In other words, you and Tesla​

may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action."​

​

See also: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf
and This article explaining it goes beyond employment law

 

[stopcrazypp]

You guys do realize that class actions are explicitly forbidden in the arbitration agreement, and the US Supreme Court (at least in the employment law context) has upheld such language. Right? The moral of the story: use the only other alternative to binding arbitration: Small Claims Court.

The language:

"The arbitrator may only resolve disputes between you and Tesla, and may not consolidate claims without the consent of all parties. The arbitrator​

cannot hear class or representaive claims or requests for relief on behalf of others purchasing or leasing Tesla vehicles. In other words, you and Tesla​

may bring claims against the other only in your or its individual capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any class or representative action."​

​

See also: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-988_n6io.pdf
and This article explaining it goes beyond employment law

Given people were still able to bring a class action back then, I presume their agreements didn't have a requirement for arbitration however (or did all of people participating opt out?). I would presume Tesla can't unilaterally retroactively change the terms for those people.