
Tesla remotely removed autopilot features from used Tesla without notice - t23
https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-features-from-customer-1841472617
======
basilgohar
I'll be honest, while the facts definitely matter for the individuals in this
case, the whole idea that this scenario can happen in the first place is very
unsettling to me. Prior to this incident, I had overlooked the degree of
control Tesla has over their products and made owning a Tesla one of my
medium-term life goals for the environmental benefits.

However, upon seeing how they exert the control they have over a vehicle's
functions remotely has caused me to rethink whether or not I trust them enough
to purchase a product. I can accept unintended bugs, this is a risk I would be
willing to take (and hopefully neither me nor my family would suffer terribly
for), but for the vehicle itself to have a feature enabled upon sale and then
have it disabled after an audit is beyond what I can find acceptable. I
understand some fault may rest on the dealer if they misrepresented how they
were allowed to sell the car, I'm not talking about "did the customer pay for
this feature or not". I'm talking about how such a significant, and expensive,
feature of a car can be arbitrarily, and unilaterally, toggled at the whim of
the manufacturer.

Frankly, I no longer have the confidence that the legal, economic, nor, sadly,
the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient
protection to regular people anymore for these kinds of cases and trends. The
encroaching subscription model of commerce is slowly taking ownership away
from individuals of the very things they rely on in their daily lives and I
don't like it.

~~~
tarsinge
> owning a Tesla one of my medium-term life goals for the environmental
> benefits

Sorry to jump in but just in case keep in mind that pushing an old ICE car has
usually a lesser impact than buying a new one, it can take years until the
difference in consumption cover the impact of the building process and the
materials extraction and transport.

~~~
systemtest
The best option for the environment would be going without a car at all, like
many people in Europe do. Unfortunately people have created environments and
societies where they are chained to car ownership.

~~~
JohnFen
> The best option for the environment would be going without a car at all

Indeed. This is what I do (in the US). The second-best option for the
environment is to buy a used car. Environmentally speaking, a used ICE car
beats a new electric one.

~~~
kmonsen
US is not really saying enough. I live with my gf in NYC and we had no need
for a car. If I got one for free I would have tried to sell it as soon as
possible.

Now we live in bay area suburbs with a dog, and one car is absolutely needed
if you can afford it. If we had kids it would have been almost impossible
without a car.

------
zaroth
The real story is totally missing at this point, so it’s not surprising that
the discussion has gone totally off the rails.

My understanding is this; _any time_ Tesla buys back or is returned one of its
cars, all optional features are cleared off the car.

If you sell your used Model S or Model 3 with FSD back to Tesla, one day in
the future you may see that VIN for sale on Tesla.com or elsewhere, but the
FSD, Acceleration Boost, Homelink, any software upgrades will be cleared off,
and available for purchase optionally by the new owner.

In a _private party_ sale, the optional features that are currently active on
a car will always stay intact. Tesla does not and will not remove a feature
from a car unless they have legal possession of the car.

The software features on the original sales sticker are irrelevant. The used
car dealer bought a car from Tesla _without_ EAP or FSD, and we have no
documentation to say otherwise. The feature was disabled while the used car
dealer still had the car, before it was sold to the now current owner.

When the car was returned under lemon-law back to Tesla, they have every right
to reconfigure it however they see fit.

If the used car dealer can provide documentation that Tesla sold them EAP or
FSD then it’s a different story. That has not happened.

~~~
Waterluvian
If what you've said is all accurate, then yeah, absolutely 100%.

Imagine if you return a MacBook to Apple. As part of refurbishing it, they
disable half the RAM (make up a reason, it's broken or whatever). And then
sell it to someone described as in its current state.

Heck Tesla could take the engine out and sell it as a lawn ornament. As long
as they're not committing crimes by misrepresenting what they're selling.

~~~
austenallred
Or if you bought a MacBook and they wiped all of the software you bought from
Apple on it and sell the hardware as is?

That’s what happens, no?

The problem here is the lack of disclosure that the car didn’t have FSD. If
Tesla buys a car they can resell it with whatever features they’d like.

~~~
frogpelt
Another HUGE part of this is if you are going to sell your Tesla to a third
party, you cannot guarantee the feature set they will get. So, if you pay
$8,000 for auto pilot etc. you should not expect to recoup a dime of that
money when you sell the car to a buyer who has read this story.

~~~
kempbellt
Seems almost equivalent to selling a personal computer with a copy of
Photoshop on it. Before you sell it, you're probably going to want to wipe the
hard drive, and therefore Photoshop is gone.

I don't know the legalese behind Tesla's features being "licensed" or "sold"
as a part of the car, or to the owner, or what the right outcome is here. I
get both sides of the argument though.

~~~
saghm
I think the difference is that most computers don't come with a fully-licensed
copy of Photoshop when they're originally purchased

~~~
leereeves
Or a sticker saying "Photoshop included".

------
crmrc114
I mean, if you buy a Tesla you know you dont own a car. You are just licensing
it. I refuse to support a company that makes me sign a f __*ing gag order for
the privilege of their car.[https://www.slashgear.com/tesla-on-offensive-
against-nhtsa-g...](https://www.slashgear.com/tesla-on-offensive-against-
nhtsa-gag-order-allegations-10443577/)

Screw Tesla and the Authoritarian Technocratic hell they want to enforce on
the automotive industry.

I cannot fathom how someone can be a tinkerer of things and support a company
that continues to barely support things like the magnuson moss warranty act.
Companies like Tesla prove we NEED right to repair.

I am genuinely curious how the community feels about Tesla's hostility to
third party repair and open documentation.

~~~
slg
If you are a tinkerer who is upset by Tesla's control over the software in
your vehicle, you can disconnect the data connection in the car. You purchased
the car and you can use the car how you see fit. You did not purchase a free,
unrestricted, and perpetual license to use Tesla services. It is no different
than purchasing an Apple or Android phone and having to abide by Apple's or
Google's ToS to get the most out of the device.

~~~
gnicholas
Would this void the warranty? I assume if the vehicle malfunctioned in any
way, or caused an accident, Tesla would say it was your fault for
disconnecting.

Of course, one could make the argument that since they sometimes push out
updates that have bugs, it's actually safer to drive the car with a static
feature set that the driver is familiar with.

~~~
slipheen
The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act makes it illegal to void the warranty for
modifying your vehicle.

They would need to prove that failure was a direct result of your
modification.

~~~
almost_usual
It won’t void the warranty but most automaker shops won’t touch anything
you’ve modified. So the warranty is pretty much void for said modified parts.

Toyota won’t touch my modified Tacoma suspension and I’m fine with it. They
are more than willing to fix anything else.

------
Symbiote
In Europe this would be very straightforward. The car is not "as described" in
the sale. Return it to the _dealer_ who has to make it right: add the missing
feature, agree a discount, or give a full refund.

e.g. [https://www.consumereurope.dk/menu/laws/danish-
laws/danish-s...](https://www.consumereurope.dk/menu/laws/danish-laws/danish-
sale-of-goods-act/) § 42 onwards.

~~~
fxtentacle
The whole approach of making software unsellable is very American. Here in
Europe we have a guaranteed right to sell used software.

For example, Autodesk turned their 3ds max from $5k once into a $6k annual
subscription. As a result, people started buying used perpetual licenses to
avoid the overpriced subscription. Autodesk is denying those used license
transfers in the US, but they have to tolerate it in the EU.

As a result, advertisement, movie and CGI studios in Europe gained a
competitive advantage over US companies because the weak US laws failed to
protect their own studios from predatory pricing.

And for a CGI animator making $3k monthly, those $6k in annual software fees
really add 16% to the gross price, so enough to drive customers elsewhere.

~~~
anovikov
Anyone actually pays those exorbitant prices? I thought they were just for
bribery-fueled wholesale deals, everyone else just pirates them. Know a lot of
animators and no one ever paid for those.

~~~
__m
I doubt that. Maybe they don’t have a license personally but the studio they
work for sure has, or they are just one disgruntled employee away from getting
a friendly reminder from Autodesk

~~~
anovikov
LOL i know a media rendering farm, a big one, that uses pirated Adobe software
of all kinds. Asked how do they deal with licensing they just say "but well we
are a Russian company, we are not concerned with this, licensing is a Western
concept".

The notion of "registering an app" ("зарегистрировать приложение") in Russian
means "finding a crack".

------
Hamuko
Tesla already has a history of retroactively taking stuff from you -
especially if it's a salvaged car.

Here's what a comment on Tesla Motors Club says you should be prepared to lose
on a salvaged car:

> _For anyone purchasing as salvaged Tesla, they should assume Tesla will cut
> them off from supercharging, software updates, Internet access, and internet
> use by the media player & navigation system - until Tesla has re-certified
> the car. Until then preparing for other charging options is prudent._

At least to me that sounds like a lot of things that they can just take away
from your car with a flag.

~~~
consp
These are all subscription services which are not covered on any car.

In my case (not a tesla): software updates are only installed iff there is a
recall notice. One time they installed an update because they had to wait
anyways but that was not guaranteed and a service from the mechanic.

Most internet uses in cars (if not all) are bound the a person, not a car.
Selling it most likely voids that subscription. In my case the uses are free
for 5 years for the first buyer and a paid subscription afterwards. Most
likely tesla does something similar.

Supercharging: See internet. Though I see plenty of them advertised with it.
Maybe this is different in the EU.

Features (as in, bought features in feature packs or options) on the other
hand are something of value (even if only software) added to the car and
cannot be taken away without compensation or reimbursement. Unless you had a
subscription but that is not the case in this instance.

~~~
Joe-Z
But they still sell the car for a whole lot of money. The more honest approach
would be to only offer rental/subscription cars, if essential features such as
charging your friggin electric car can't even be guaranteed after purchasing
the damn thing.

Using an apologetic tone for the scummy and exploitative business tactics
employed by these companies is exactly why people like GP don't have faith
that "...the modern moral system of the United States will provide sufficient
protection..." anymore.

~~~
ProZsolt
They don't remove charging. They remove the ability to charge your car for
free. I completely understand that.

Think about it. Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to
another car, and get free charging for life. The same happened with 3G enabled
Kindles.

~~~
dragontamer
> Somebody could buy a Tesla charger circuit, install it to another car, and
> get free charging for life.

Who owns that Tesla charger circuit? Somebody paid $5000 for free
supercharging for life, and presumably the "key" or whatever is loaded onto
something.

The thing is: Tesla wants to be a scummy company and remotely take away that
key from its users upon sale of the vehicle. Is not "free supercharging for
life" implied to be tied to the car (or more specifically, the car's charging
circuit)??

If it is tied to the car itself, then the "key" should be tied to some
component that "defines" the car, like maybe the motors or the battery pack.
The software can check to see if its still connected to the same battery-pack
token or whatever if you really want to verify things (with logic used every
10 years whenever battery packs are replaced).

\-----

If Tesla wants both, they can have both with proper engineering effort.
However, they're being lazy if they are just cutting off users without any
recourse.

~~~
ProZsolt
I understand your point, but they talking about salvaged cars. Usually, they
are built from multiple cars. If you cut two teslas in half. One has autopilot
one has free charging. Then you make a two cars from one part of each car.
What features should get the new cars?

If the key tied to the charging circuit. Would it be fair to pay that extra
$5000 if the charging circuit fails and you have to buy a new one? And if you
can transfer that, what happens when somebody fixes the old one?

What I want to point out that "for life" services shouldn't be tied to complex
things.

------
gnicholas
> _The owner in question, who Jalopnik refers to as Alec, purchased the car
> last December. The dealer bought the car a month earlier from a Tesla
> auction, with both “Enhanced Autopilot” and “Full Self Driving Mode”
> features intact_

> TESLA: _Tesla has recent identified instances of customers being incorrectly
> configured for Autopilot versions that they did not pay for. Since, there
> was an audit done to correct these instances. Your vehicle is one of the
> vehicles that was incorrectly configured for Autopilot. We looked back at
> your purchase history and unfortunately Full-Self Driving was not a feature
> that you had paid for._

So Buyer 1 bought a vehicle from Tesla that in fact had a feature. Buyer 1
then sold to Buyer 2, advertising this feature. Now Tesla is saying "Full-Self
Driving was not a feature that you had paid for". That's incorrect under any
interpretation of the events. Tesla could say that it wasn't a feature that
Buyer 1 paid for, but Buyer 2 definitely paid for it because it was advertised
as having the feature and that would have impacted his willingness to pay for
the vehicle.

The way Tesla has worded this makes it seem like they would potentially
disable features for people who buy Teslas used — regardless of whether the
first owner paid for that feature — on the grounds that "X was not a feature
that you had paid for".

I don't see how the $8,000 (or less, since it's a used vehicle?) that Tesla
would get from this would be worth this terrible publicity.

~~~
resoluteteeth
> Tesla could say that it wasn't a feature that Buyer 1 paid for

Tesla sold the car to Buyer 1 (the dealer) with the feature enabled. I think
that means that it was in fact a feature that Buyer 1 paid for, even if they
didn't purchase the feature in a separate transaction.

If you sell someone a house with a roof, you don't get to go back and say
"sorry I just noticed that the roof upgrade was never purchased for this house
so I'm going to remove the roof unless you pay another $6000."

~~~
gnicholas
I could see an argument that Buyer 1 was accidentally given this feature, if
it was not advertised as present, and if there was no way for Buyer 1 to know
the feature was enabled at that time (auctions probably don't have test
drives).

Under those circumstances, the fact that it was in fact enabled was sort of a
windfall to Buyer 1. If Tesla could have pulled it back and notified Buyer 1
prior to the subsequent sale to Buyer 2, maybe this wouldn't seem so bad. But
to hit Buyer 2 with this — especially since Buyer 2 is a person, not a
business — makes this very unsavory.

~~~
resoluteteeth
> I could see an argument that Buyer 1 was accidentally given this feature, if
> it was not advertised as present

That's not what happened here. Tesla specifically advertised the car as having
these features when selling it to the dealer. See the image of the Monroney
sticker half way down this page: [https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-
autopilot-featur...](https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-
features-from-customer-1841472617?rev=1580941196331)

~~~
URSpider94
The Monroney sticker is only valid for new cars. Yes, the car had FSD when it
was new. What Tesla alleges is that when they re-sold the car at auction, they
didn’t include FSD.

Let’s say a car had a motor swap from a V8 to a V6, and is then sold at
auction. Pointing at the Monroney sticker to say the car was sold with a V8 is
not relevant.

~~~
johnmarcus
Except it wasn't swapped ,it had the v8 in it, as also advertised, and then
post auction they broke into your garage and swapped for the v6 because they
were unhappy with their final sales price. If the sticker was on the car
uncorrected, I beelieve it would hold up in court as advertising.

------
siruncledrew
Autopilot must be a really high-margin feature for Tesla. $7k for basically a
remotely-managed software license the end-user has no real control over. Once
the costs of development, maintenance, and labor are recouped, then each
successive AP activation is a big extra margin for Tesla over the normal
vehicle price.

The entire "Autopilot" feature is technical ability driven by marketing to
pump more money out of their car sales. Good business for Tesla, but a shitty
thing to do to consumers to treat autopilot as an owner-dependent feature and
not as a feature that could be handed off. That's one of the biggest negatives
to having cars that can innately phone home to the manufacturer - it gives
Tesla the power to giveth and taketh away at their discretion, and leave the
car and consumer S.O.L.

~~~
s_y_n_t_a_x
> That's one of the biggest negatives to having cars that can innately phone
> home to the manufacturer

Versus buying a dumb car and never getting upgrades?

I'll take the "risk" to get sentry/dog/camping mode as free updates vs having
to buy a new car every time I want a new feature.

~~~
raxxorrax
I can really live without updating my car. Last year I used an electric
company car to drive home. Or at least that was the plan. After half of the
way a warning light flashed up and the display told me to stop the car as soon
as possible. That I did. It completely shut down after stopping. Nothing
worked anymore besides warning lights, otherwise it was completely dead. Had
to leave the car behind and walk home (short trip, I was just lazy because
winter).

Next day in the morning I tried to start it up and it actually worked again.
The display just shortly displayed 'update complete'. Made me laugh. I believe
the error was related to the battery being low while it was really cold
outside and the update notification was unrelated. But I guess you could call
that "camping mode".

Still left me with an appreciation for my old car, which is too old and stupid
to receive updates and is really dependable without me treating it that well.

~~~
ianai
That sounds like a real life nightmare to me. I have to be able to depend on
my transportation. It’s going to be excessively costly and stressful for me to
rely on someone else in that case. Completely unacceptable behavior from a
car.

------
diddid
I'm surprised that they removed it because it's on the monroney sticker.

I bought a BMW that was supposed to get the new/shorter 36 month maintenance
included. But the sticker was still referencing the 48 month plan. I didn't
even notice.

BMW must have ran an audit, and know what they did? They honored the sticker
and said something like "Your monro sticker was wrong and said you get 48
months maintenance, so you get 48 months maintenance"

I think this just goes back to how they are inexperienced and not a real
dealer. I'd expect they'd lose any court battle surrounding it. It's the whole
point of the sticker.

~~~
mnm1
Surprised why? Companies do illegal shit all the time and get away with it.
Just recently Lenovo did not cancel my order for a p1 laptop after almost two
months, way longer than the 30 days of their estimate and allowed buy federal
law. What can I do? Nothing. Just like the guy in this story. He has no
recourse against Tesla and I doubt he'll get it from the dealer either. They
will definitely win in court. The dealer probably will too. The customer will
get stuck with this.

When laws aren't enforced, their existence is irrelevant. We are seeing this
with this monroney sticker and I'm sure this is the standard, default policy
of Tesla. Hell, even if there's a class action lawsuit, Tesla will not admit
fault, they will not change, and the only people who will get actual
compensation are the lawyers. It won't hurt Tesla so civil penalties are just
as ineffective as the law in this case. Corporate profits over everything is
the norm. Let's not pretend that the law or civil suits get in the way of that
now. Hell, can you even sue Tesla, or do they require arbitration?

~~~
jonknee
> What can I do? Nothing.

I assume you used a credit card? Seems quite likely they can take care of that
for you.

~~~
mnm1
They are refusing to refund it. Yes, I can charge back and will. But I was
referring to what can I do in response to Lenovo. There is a law but it's
useless. So I just get fucked over with no recourse. I can't sue then and the
ftc doesn't give a fuck and won't pursue the issue so they will keep fucking
people over since there is no recourse. I cannot get justice.

------
black_puppydog
> It’s a peculiar situation that raises hard questions

I disagree. They sold something, and the resell does not change anything in
their side of the calculation. It's not like due to that sale, their backend
suddenly has to do more work than if the car had stayed with the original
buyer.

So the only "argument" tesla can really bring forward why they want this
customer to pay for those features a second time is "because we can make
them."

Not a hard question in my book.

~~~
Lightbody
From reading the article, it doesn't sound like Tesla actually "sold" the
features to the original owner (which went to auction, and then was sold).

Instead, it sounds like Tesla goofed and enabled some features that should
never have been enabled, and then clawed them back after the car changed hands
several times (original owner -> auction, auction -> dealer, dealer ->
customer).

The problem is that with so many parties involved, nobody is going to jump up
and make it right for the final customer. It sucks for the customer.

The solution? Tesla needs a feature where resellers can initiate an audit of
the car and Tesla can provide a certificate of the features that it commits to
supporting. That would greatly reduce these kinds of problems going forward.

~~~
alistairSH
Those options were listed on the Monroney sticker (in addition to actually
being installed). Those are required by federal law to be accurate. Anybody
who bought the car either new or used, would expect anything listed on the
Monroney to be part of the original specs.

~~~
URSpider94
So, if I buy a car and rip out the radio, and then resell it, a used buyer
down the road should refer to the Monroney sticker and demand that the seller
put in a radio?

~~~
alistairSH
Can't tell if you're serious or trolling, but giving you the benefit of the
doubt... No, this is like selling me the car, stealing it's radio a week
later, and then telling me via email that you really didn't mean to include
the radio.

The Monroney sticker is just proof that the car WAS ACTUALLY SOLD WITH THE
OPTION, which contradicts Tesla's claim that the car was not sold with the
option.

~~~
URSpider94
The car was sold with that option to the original owner. It was then sold back
to Tesla at some point, and they (in theory) removed that option, though it
seems like they failed to perform the update on the car to make that go
through.

The Monroney sticker shows that the car had that option when new. It doesn't
apply to resale, ever - there is no Monroney sticker for used cars. Nothing
says it has to have that option forever - Tesla can remove it if they want,
when they own the car, just like they could take out the back seats, or the
radio, or put in a bigger battery, or lock it into permanent valet mode.

I am a little concerned that they issued the update after the car left their
possession, so it really hinges on what they told the buyer. If they
incorrectly represented to the buyer that the car had that option, through
some part of the sales contract, then they definitely need to honor that. But
nobody has provided any evidence of that. If they were simply silent on the
issue, then it's more gray. The analogy I've given elsewhere is if a car was
equipped with a lifetime Sirius satellite subscription that is supposed to
expire on transfer, and then Sirius cancels it after the sale, then that seems
fair.

~~~
alistairSH
You are correct that the Monroney only applies to new car sales, so it's not
part of this sale other than serving as a piece of information about the
original build.

But, a buyer who saw the sticker would reasonably think "oh, this car came
with FSD," [physically uses FSD to confirm], "Yup, has FSD! Cool, it's worth
$4000 more to me now." Whether or not the sales contract listed FSD is
irrelevant if the car left Tesla with the option installed.

------
virgilp
The real kicker is that before Taleb brought it to light, Tesla support was
telling people who accidentally purchased the Autopilot feature that "sorry,
we can't undo the purchase/the feature is added, and it's permanent".

~~~
Hamuko
It's probably accurate in that they (Tesla support) can't/aren't allowed to
undo the purchase.

~~~
torstenvl
"Can't" does not mean the same thing as "it's against policy."

"Permanent" does not mean the same thing as "we can reverse this at whim, but
only when it suits _us_ and not _you._ "

------
sodastreamgirl
Here’s the inside scoop - older vehicles used to be much easier to enable
autopilot and other paid features, so many places online sold much cheaper
upgrades to autopilot and FSD. Tesla has a record of all purchases and the
factory state of the vehicle. If the software has been illegally activated
they are within their rights to disable the upgrade. This has nothing to do
with the license being tied to a person, free supercharging is the only thing
tied to a user.

Think of it as buying a concert ticket - you get to the venue and they tell
you it’s counterfeit. Do you blame the venue or the seller? If they had bought
the vehicle from Tesla it would have been a very different story.

And for the uninformed folks having a cry about disabled supercharging on
salvage titles. Supercharging is automatically disabled on all cars when a
serious collision is detected. This is to prevent a rapid and massive o rush
of charging current flowing into potentially damaged batteries or HV wiring.
Supercharging is a massive amount of energy dumped into the vehicle at once,
hundreds times more than a regular home outlet, if something is wrong in the
car it could start a fire. The majority of salvage titles have had an airbag
deployment and this is one of the triggers for disabling supercharging,
salvage title or not. Service will inspect the vehicle and if satisfied of the
safety will enable charging again. I think it’s a brilliant feature, and very
safely focused.

~~~
crmrc114
Very safety focused- Sure, now for the open market part. How about we try to
find a third party shop that has access to repair and re-enable that Tesla's
Supercharger mode?

Across the USA there are shops working on exotic cars, hybrid vehicles and
full EV's. You dont hear about Nissan all electrics or BMW all electrics
exploding all over the place. Its insane to claim Tesla's are so advanced and
so magical that an ASE certified mechanic cant work on them.

If FoMoCo or GM did this everyone would claim Antitrust. MS cant force you to
use IE, but Tesla, they are the golden boy on wall street and no one is
willing to hold them to the same standards as other Automotive manufacturers.

~~~
sodastreamgirl
Tesla has a bunch of certified body shops and they have the correct software
to diagnose and modify the vehicle...check your receipts.

Same for bmw, and all other exotic cars. Hell even Apple.

~~~
crmrc114
Tesla has locked down their third party repair options to only where required
by law. The deliver the minimum viable product. And since you mention apple
[https://apple.slashdot.org/story/20/02/06/2015209/apples-
ind...](https://apple.slashdot.org/story/20/02/06/2015209/apples-independent-
repair-program-is-invasive-to-shops-and-their-customers-contract-shows)

Since you seem to be under the impression that Teslas are friendly to work on
please take a moment and Enjoy this lovely youtuber who spends his time
pissing off Tesla:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA)

Also on the apple front:
[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w)

------
URSpider94
People keep referring to the Monroney sticker here. It’s irrelevant. Yes, when
the car was new, it came with FSD. Then Tesla took it back as a trade, and
while it was in their possession, they deleted the features. They are well
within their right to do that, since they own the car.

There is no Monroney sticker for used car sales, so the one the article shows
is a reprint of what the car had when sold new, which is no longer accurate.
Just as it would be inaccurate for a gas car if someone had done an engine
swap from a V8 to a diesel.

The one and only issue is whether Tesla represented that the car came with FSD
in the sale at auction to the dealer. If they didn’t, then the dealer doesn’t
have a leg to stand on here, unfortunately.

Another analogy - I might buy a car at auction where the Sirius radio works,
because the old owner forgot to disable it. If they disable it later, then I
would only have a claim if the seller claimed that the car came with lifetime
free Sirius. Just because it worked when I bought it, doesn’t mean it will
keep working, if it wasn’t intended to be included with the car.

As others have noted, Tesla does not remove features except when they are the
owner of the car. The only exception being, “lifetime free supercharging” does
not transfer with change of ownership, except on the oldest Model S cars out
there.

~~~
leereeves
Tesla seems to have admitted that they removed this feature when they weren't
the owner, according to the picture of the in the invoice that says AP was
removed on Nov 18, after Tesla had sold the car (on Nov 15).

I imagine their actions were based on the idea that AP is software and not
included in the sale of the car. That's how computers are sold, but it is
tremendously surprising for a car and a dangerous precedent.

A modern car (especially a Tesla) is driven by software. If used car buyers
don't own the software in the car, do they even own the firmware that drives
the car?

~~~
URSpider94
You are correct. I should have said Tesla INTENDED to remove the feature while
they were in possession. Perhaps they removed it on paper, but didn’t go
through the step of removing it via a SW update. More to the point, they don’t
arbitrarily yank features off of cars in the field, though of course they have
the ability via SW update to do so - they could lock me out of my car right
now if they wanted to, or set the stereo to play Baby Shark on repeat at max
volume and disable the volume controls. All possible.

The point remains, if they intended to remove it, and notified the purchaser
that the car didn’t have the feature, then I would side with Tesla, though
it’s indeed very sloppy. Again - it would be as if I moved into a house and
the lawn guy kept coming for two months because the previous owner forgot to
cancel the service. On the other hand, if the car was represented to the first
buyer (the dealer) as having FSD, then Tesla is on the hook.

I’m sure the lawyers will figure it out ...

~~~
leereeves
> and notified the purchaser that the car didn’t have the feature

If you mean before the sale, then I agree. If they clearly told the buyer in
advance that FSD wasn't included (despite the sticker saying otherwise), then
not actually disabling it until a few days later isn't an issue.

But if there were evidence of that, I think Tesla would have responded. I'm
sure a few people there read Hacker News.

And I fear the only thing the lawyers will sort out is who has more money to
pay lawyers.

------
sammachin
Looking at it from the original buyers perspective, When they sold/traded in
their used Model S to Tesla did the price they get take into account the self
drive feature, or do Tesla pay the same trade in regardless of software
features? If Tesla aren't buying back the feature then it makes it even less
enticing to buy it on a new car as it has 100% depreciation! If they're paying
for it at trade in then removing it before they sell it on then thats kinda
fair enough its a bit like a dealer taking in a car with fancy wheels and
putting stock ones on before they sell it on, sucks for the used buyer if they
then have to pay full new price to add that feature later but... Although in
this case it seems the issue is that Tesla sold a used car with a feature and
then decided to take that feature back, which is theft in my book pure and
simple.

~~~
TheGrumpyBrit
It sounds like it was returned due to lemon law, which I imagine means the
original buyer received a full refund. That's probably also the reason the
feature was removed - they probably meant to disable it before selling it on.
However, they didn't, and that's their mistake to accept - they can't just
revoke features after they've already sold it without agreement from the
buyer.

~~~
greglindahl
Can you point at a source for the auction paperwork? The article doesn't have
it.

~~~
TheGrumpyBrit
The Monroney paperwork is provided by the manufacturer as a legally binding
assertion of the features the vehicle was sold with - there's a copy of that
in the article.

~~~
greglindahl
That's for new cars. This wasn't a new car.

~~~
TheGrumpyBrit
I'm not 100% sure of the law, but I wouldn't expect that to make a difference.
The manufacturer may not be legally required to include the document if the
vehicle isn't new, but if they choose to include one, I expect that it would
still be required to be accurate and would still be legally binding.

------
jankotek
Tesla is kind of hostile to second hand market. No spare parts , no service
history info, unauthorized repair disables charging etc.. Basically Apple
mentality.

Car with a good maintenance should last 20 years. Not like a phone that gets
thrown away every 5 years.

~~~
jlbooker
This is outdated. Tesla now publishes a full parts catalog. You can call up
the parts desk at any Tesla Service Center and order whatever part you like
(for the most part, a few critical parts are restricted). I believe they do
ask for a VIN number, though.

~~~
FireBeyond
Have you actually tried that?

Unless its changed even more recently - they _do_ publish a parts catalog.

And every single item, down to the most commodity screw/bolt doesn't list a
price, just says "Contact Tesla for Sales". And according to at least a few
people who have indeed contacted them, "Sorry, that part is not purchasable".

Basically as if a state said they had to make parts available to be
(potentially) purchased online, and they had followed the very letter of the
law.

------
rubthelamp
Doesn’t Tesla understand that this behavior diminishes the value of their
current customers’ cars. If I currently own a Tesla and want to sell it, who
would want to buy it knowing that Tesla could remove features anytime. They
have just decimated the value of their cars. The market will correct their
behavior.

~~~
rootusrootus
If Tesla were thinking ahead, they'd have already realized that FSD should be
offered as a license assigned to the user, not the car. Someone who has $7K of
sunk cost into the brand itself is definitely going to lean towards a Tesla as
their next vehicle, if buying a Ford/Kia/Hyundia/Jaguar/Audi/Porsche/whatever
means losing that license.

------
Hamuko
I'm not sure how anyone at Tesla thinks it's a good idea to remove options
from a 2-3 year old car.

~~~
kjksf
They don't. According to Tesla that feature was enabled by mistake and never
paid for.

Whether you believe Tesla, is another matter but it's not like they remove
features people paid for.

~~~
Hamuko
> _They don 't_

They don't think it's a good idea but they do it regardless?

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Nobody ever got fired for doing exactly what the process said they should.

Someone in the chain that handled this ticket probably just didn't realize
this was a case of broken process that would lead to a newsworthy bad outcome
so they didn't escalate it and instead did what the process told them to.
Maybe there was a perceived bigger fire to fight that day or something. It's
really hard to build a support system that is highly averse to any perceived
risk or monetary loss to the company without having things like these slip
through the inevitable cracks in your processes.

~~~
JohnFen
> Someone in the chain that handled this ticket probably just didn't realize
> this was a case of broken process that would lead to a newsworthy bad
> outcome

All the more reason to avoid Teslas and any other equipment that can be
modified remotely after the sale.

------
aussieguy1234
If you're thinking of buying a new Tesla take this into account, as it will
probably affect the resale value

~~~
kjksf
It won't.

When you buy FSD and sell the car, the FSD stays with the car.

This is a muddy situation where car was sold back to Tesla, dealer bought it
from Tesla and sold to a third party.

Dealer claims it bought the car with FSD from Tesla. Tesla claims the car
never had FSD and it was enabled by mistake.

Someone is lying but it's a one off situation.

You don't loose $7k feature when you sell the car, it stays with the car.

~~~
Hamuko
> _Tesla claims the car never had FSD and it was enabled by mistake._

How on earth can the car both never had FSD and having FSD enabled by mistake?
The car either had FSD, or it didn't.

~~~
gambiting
All Teslas are built with FSD hardware included. If you pay the extra $7k or
whatever it is, they just enable it for you in software. In here, they are
just arguing that it was enabled by mistake and the customer never paid for it
in the first place.

~~~
TheGrumpyBrit
Which honestly doesn't sound relevant to the purchaser. My understanding is
that the Monroney sticker stipulates exactly what features are included in the
vehicle, as provided by the manufacturer. By purchasing the vehicle, the
customer has paid for exactly those features.

This is like them saying "Oh, we forgot to charge your dealer you for the
premium interior and lighting" (which is listed on the same sheet as a $5000
option) - your response would quite rightly be "Tough, I bought it from the
dealer at the agreed price based on the features listed, it's mine now"

~~~
gambiting
Absolutely, and as others have already pointed out, it's on the dealer to put
this right. Either refund the customer, pay for the upgrade, or take the car
back.

------
muzika
This is absurd. It’s theft, plain and simple. Tesla wants to habe each owner
of the car pay the $7,000 software update option, yet when someone pays for
it, they refuse to transfer the license to the buyer’s next car.

~~~
madaxe_again
If I have a computer with a big pile of really expensive software on it
licensed to _me_ , and I sell you that piece of hardware, without formatting
the disks, does that mean I’ve sold you those licenses?

I think any reasonable take here is “no, you did not”.

A Tesla is a computer that just happens to have wheels.

In this case, it sounds like someone bought a second hand computer that
happened to have an unlicensed installation of some software, and the license
was revoked. Perhaps the car was ex-demo before the owner who auctioned it off
did so.

Now, there’s a _separate_ question around the communications over this, and
the dealer/end customer being mis-sold, and they’ve stumbled there, but this
is more of a gap between expectations (it’s a car!) vs reality (it’s a
computer).

~~~
micheljansen
That's really not how it is sold.

If you want to stick with the computer metaphor, it's like Tesla sold you a
computer with some paid-for firmware options enabled, tied to that device,
that cannot be transferred to any other device, then pulls them post-resale.

Tesla needs to pick: either it's software licensed to you as a person and
therefore transferrable to another car, or it's software tied to a specific
car and therefore transferrable to another person.

------
almost_usual
Tesla is another arbiter of control in the guise of being good. Haven’t
trusted them for years, would never buy one.

------
CSSer
Even since they made autopilot standard, I still find this whole payment
structure hard to swallow. I would understand the idea of end of life support
or even a monthly subscription because I wholly embrace the idea of more
maintainable code and features in cars. It’s not realistic to expect all of
that for free in an as of yet imperfect technology. At a bare minimum, the
infrastructure needs to be managed and maintained. This is a bit idealistic,
but it may hopefully even lead to better industry standardization in the
future.

With that in mind, the whole lump-sum pay structure just feels grubby. What if
I buy the car, pay for the features, decide I don’t like it and sell it in a
short period of time? Granted, it’s likely a poor financial decision on my
part, but I’m left with no way to recoup that part of my investment. Rather
than being a depreciating asset, it’s not an asset at all. Worse still, tweaks
to refund policies are likely to be unsatisfactory. I already said I’m willing
to pay something, but the choices I’m provided are to either demand an refund,
the process of which feels like wasting everyone’s time involved, or make an
arbitrary donation of capital to Tesla, Inc. Meanwhile, the terms continue to
change for new buyers and aren’t evenly applied to old or used buyers. Just do
the math for me, let me sign up and be done with it. Software is soft, water
is wet, etc. If they don’t get this in check, the old guard could eat their
lunch like people keep predicting.

------
Traster
Just be glad they let you keep power steering and ABS.

~~~
taneq
Coming soon: Airbags-As-A-Service.

~~~
ddalex
$1 / minute of driving for the airbag to monitor crash conditions and deploy

~~~
taneq
* Full Airbag is not currently complete and will be provided as an over-the-air update at some point in the future

------
micheljansen
I think it's just a matter of time until Tesla moves to a subscription model.
The current model of selling FSD as an early adopter package relies a lot on
the promise it will be there soon and the expectation that the value (and
price) will go up. If Tesla doesn't deliver on their FSD promises before
current owners start looking for their next car, there's a huge risk of
disappointment. These will be customers who paid thousands of dollars for FSD
functionality that they never got.

Turning FSD into a subscription solves this: allowing customers to take the
functionality to their next car keeps the current customer base happy and
avoids messing up resale value if Tesla does not manage to deliver FSD on
current hardware. It also creates a huge incentive for current owners to make
their next car also a Tesla.

Tesla is already starting to offer premium functionality such as entertainment
on a subscription model. As soon as FSD is good enough that people actually
want to pay monthly for it (and not just the promise of it), I expect Tesla
will do the same for FSD (and maybe even for other things like performance
upgrades).

~~~
dwighttk
But to sell a subscription you have to have a product. You can sell FSD
“capability” now, but if they switched that to a subscription they’d have to
say “sign up to this list to start paying the subscription when we actually
have FSD”

~~~
rootusrootus
They have a product, it is just misnamed. FSD gets you smart summon, navigate-
on-autopilot, AP lane switches, and autopark. It should be called enhanced
autopilot, because actual FSD is so far away that nearly all current Teslas
will be crushed before it's a real thing.

------
rgovostes
This reminds me of Sony removing OtherOS from the Playstation 3. Users had to
choose between updating their software and losing the ability to run Linux, or
never being able to play online or buy a new game. It is outrageous for
company to remove advertised features after the fact, and I haven't bought a
Sony device since.

------
hijinks
This is one of the main reasons I won't buy a Tesla. They can just turn off
things you paid for at will.

The other is they won't open up their parts for people to work on their own
cars. That's one of the main reasons used Teslas are so expensive. I mean even
salvaged Teslas are really expensive.

~~~
knorker
But in this case Tesla had _not_ been paid for this. Not by anyone.

The title of the article implies that they have, but if you read it you see
that they have not.

~~~
dathinab
IMHO that not true:

They sold a car. That car had certain features enabled.

That normally that feature would cost extra or is not explicitly listed in the
contract doesn't matter at all. It was enabled in the car so anyone inspecting
the car clearly saw the feature when looking for it.

It's like selling a car and then telling the buyer a month later "oh btw. the
second row of seats in your car was not listed in the contract (even through
you saw it when buying) so we went to your car used our master key to unlock
it and removed the seats, you can always get them back by paying another
8,000".

Companies who accidental sell more then they want normally live with that loss
and accept it as their error (which it IMHO obviously was).

~~~
sodastreamgirl
FSD in an old vehicle like this doesn’t even do anything. It’s a placeholder
feature, you would never know if it was on or not, there’s zero customer
facing features in the fsd package on -older- vehicles.

Newer vehicles, yes, FSD package has features.

~~~
drewg123
It at least theoretically entitles you to a free upgrade to the newer self
driving computer, which then activates the new features.

------
haunter
>Tesla has recent identified instances of customers being incorrectly
configured for Autopilot versions that they did not pay for

Can you "pirate" Autopilot? Like enable it on cars which didn't come with it,
where the buyer originally didn't pay?

~~~
MertsA
According to this source, yes.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22267407](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22267407)

Maybe original owner pirated it before getting Tesla to buy it back?

~~~
rootusrootus
The original monroney sticker had EAP and FSD listed, so nobody pirated it.

------
huffmsa
> _Oh hey, we realized our internal inventory system had this car with 16 "
> wheels but it actually has 18"._

> _We 're taking the 18s back. Here are some 16" steelies_

Pretty sure you'd get shot in some parts of the world for trying that.

~~~
Hamuko
And in other parts of the world, you'd be paying for two sets of legal council
and returning a set of 18-inch wheels.

------
dathinab
So they basically "accidentally" sold more then they wanted to and then went
after the customer (which by now happened to have changed) and _forcefully_
toke it away.

(And yes this can only be described as forcefully taking away something
because they never did something like informing the customer that an accident
happened and cooperating with that person to resolve it. Normally it would be
common for a company which did such a mistake to either just "eat the loss" or
sell the remaining part under a 50% and upward discount or so.)

~~~
FireBeyond
> So they basically "accidentally" sold more then they wanted to and then went
> after the customer (which by now happened to have changed) and forcefully
> toke it away.

And who ostensibly paid for it. Tesla can state that it wasn't paid for (I
disagree) - the buyer can say "I wouldn't have paid $x if it didn't have FSD,
_per the manufacturer sticker_".

------
legohead
Is the software upgrade tied to the car, or the individual? I think something
like this will require legislation. If I buy a car with a feature, and I am
paying extra for that feature, then I expect it to still be part of the car
when I sell it, since that was part of the value to begin with.

If Tesla wants to argue otherwise, that the software is tied to the
individual, then I should be able to either:

1) Sell the software itself to whoever

2) Transfer the software to my next car

Both of these should be options, since in the case of #2, the next car may not
have the same upgrade.

------
joshlittle
It makes me question the methodology Tesla uses for refurbishing and reselling
a lemon.

It would’ve been pretty easy to restore non autopilot software (as this event
shows) before they sold it.

After seeing the way this is handled, I for sure wouldn’t be willing to spend
$8K on a feature that can be removed so easily if I was configuring a new
Tesla - regardless of whether or not private party sales have different
policies.

The SAAS model is less appealing when it comes to durable goods.

Indeed, maybe we shouldn’t allow software features to be rolled back after the
car is delivered.

I decided against Tesla in 2017 when I bought my first EV. I wasn’t into the
complete lack of control in ownership - no ability to order parts or do my own
repairs, vendor lock in for onboard DC fast charging equipment, cars made on
“beta test” like production lines in tented parking lots, the chance of
nefarious software updates from Tesla (or others) bricking functionality the
car; or causing security issues.

Maybe the buyer should’ve done more homework, call Tesla before purchase and
verify features?

It’s a bad situation for the buyer; and another reason I have added to the
growing list of reasons not to buy a Tesla.

~~~
brewdad
The vehicle had the Moroney sticker. That is legally required to be accurate.
The buyer had no reason to contact Tesla because Tesla themselves stated the
car had this feature when they sold the car to the dealer.

------
huffmsa
So what it sounds like happened here is:

Tesla sells vehicle, original owner doesn't buy FSD. Sells vehicle back to
Tesla.

Telsa turns FSD on, maybe as part of the recertification process, and forgets
to turn it off.

Telsa resells vehicle to dealer, listed with FSD. Dealer resells to current
owner, with FSD.

Systems audit at Tesla reconciles the sales data with the car features data,
and rather than just eating their mistake, they turn off FSD.

------
dghughes
This reminds me of Samsung disabling the Galaxy phone SPO2 oxygen sensor in
Samsung Health but only for Canada. To me selling a phone with a certain
hardware feature then disabling months or years later without notice is fraud.
My dad used it frequently since he has COPD and is on supplemental oxygen (yes
I know it's not a medical device but it's a ballpark).

------
coding123
Bottom line: The car dealership and / or new owner have a case here.

Since Tesla itself sold a car that had autopilot features, it is expected that
those features would remain. The dealer bought the car and the fact that it
had autopilot features (auto park I suppose?) when the dealer bought it, they
were able to test the car and use the feature to assess and market the car's
abilities.

Basically it was what it was at the time of the (original) sale. If Tesla
wants to be more careful about this in the future that's OK, but they need to
remove those features before any party is accepting it in a sale.

I think the owner needs to send a lawsuit to Tesla that offers court,
settlement of $8000 or the features to be turned back on - and that's being
nice - since at this point the owner has probably gone through the wringer of
social media nightmare scenarios at this point.

------
Nemi
I, like everyone else here, was initially outraged that this could happen and
I immediately thought "Oh Tesla, what have you done to your public
perception". This is just not what people are expecting and this scenario
works against Tesla being embraced by the "every man".

However, I did have another thought that I have not seen talked about - does
the person that originally bought the car still have autopilot? In other
words, if they buy a _new_ Tesla, does it automatically come with autopilot?
Is the purchase of autopilot linked to the _person_ and not the _car_?

Though I still don't like that, I could be at least be persuaded to accept
that paradigm.

~~~
rootusrootus
> Is the purchase of autopilot linked to the person and not the car

No, it goes with the car. It stays with the car indefinitely unless you trade
it in to Tesla, in which case they will give you no value for it (because they
are the license grantor, it has zero value to them). As long as the car never
gets owned by Tesla again, the feature follows it around until it meets the
crusher.

------
tarunupaday
What if the “license” to use FSDM belongs to the user and not the car? What if
the original owner comes back and claims that he bought the license and he
should be allowed to use it in his new car rather than go with the old car? Is
that an unfair demand.

That is how it works for my Tesla. I bought one of the original 10000 or so
Tesla and they came with unlimited supercharging. Tesla told me that I will
have unlimited supercharging even if I get a new Tesla which I think is a
better solution than it going away when I sell the old car.

------
Peter_Rock
In my view, if the buyer and seller were acting in good faith and if the
vehicle was equipped and sold with optional features included, activated or
installed, as a result of an error claimed by the manufacturer, the optional
features are deemed included in the purchase price at the point of sale.

The bad faith in this case points to the manufacturer for attempting to
reclaim ownership and control of something it unwittingly transferred and sold
to the buyer.

------
sodastreamgirl
Here’s the inside scoop - older vehicles used to be much easier to enable
autopilot and other paid features, so many places online sold much cheaper
upgrades to autopilot and FSD. Tesla has a record of all purchases and the
factory state of the vehicle. If the software has been illegally activated
they are within their rights to disable the upgrade.

Think of it as buying a concert ticket - you get to the venue and they tell
you it’s counterfeit. Do you blame the venue or the seller? If they had bought
the vehicle from Tesla it would have been a very different story.

And for the uninformed folks having a cry about disabled supercharging on
salvage titles. Supercharging is automatically disabled on all cars when a
serious collision is detected. This is to prevent a rapid and massive o rush
of charging current flowing into potentially damaged batteries or HV wiring.
Supercharging is a massive amount of energy dumped into the vehicle at once,
hundreds times more than a regular home outlet, if something is wrong in the
car it could start a fire. The majority of salvage titles have had an airbag
deployment and this is one of the triggers for disabling supercharging,
salvage title or not. Service will inspect the vehicle and if satisfied of the
safety will enable charging again. I think it’s a brilliant feature, and very
safely focused.

~~~
crmrc114
Same account was created 22mins ago and has posted this same text on both of
these Tesla posts? Honest question do you work for Tesla PR?

Other post
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22266418](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22266418)

------
rad_gruchalski
And how does it work if I had a Tesla with FSD, sold it and bought another
one? Does it get transferred to my new car?

~~~
_ph_
No, FSD stays with the car.

~~~
rad_gruchalski
According to the article, it does not.

~~~
_ph_
The article does not say that. The point here is, that supposedly the dealer
who sold the car had bought the car without auto pilot, but it was active when
handed over. If he had bought the car with auto pilot from Tesla, it would
have stayed with the resale.

(All sides now have to check the contracts carefully to find out who actually
bought what)

------
nickik
Seems to me that it depends on if you buy the software for your account or for
your car. Both are valid buissness models as far as I am concerned. If you buy
it for your account you should only have to pay it once and then migrate it
from car to car. If you buy it for the car it should be bound to the car.

~~~
huffmsa
Then shouldn't any other upgrades you buy be tied to your account?

Heated seats? Leather? Why should we treat meat space items differently than
digital space ones?

~~~
nickik
Because when you sell the car, and do your account migration you can't remove
leather digitally. Seem rather clear.

> Why should we treat meat space items differently than digital space ones?

Because they are different? Because people want to?

~~~
huffmsa
So just because it costs something to remove meat space features and doesn't
for digital?

Seems like a good reason to disallow OTA up and down grades

~~~
huffmsa
Let's say you buy a house with an IoT refrigerator.

Should any non-subscription upgrades to said refrigerator be invalidated
because ownership changed?

Should Samsung be able to disable supercooling mode?

What if the fridge was recertified by Samsung and they turned supercooling on
and forgot to turn it off before reselling it?

~~~
overgard
If Im buying a house, the last thing I want to think about is a refrigerator
license.

If Im buying a refrigerator and the conversation turns to licenses, im just
going to nope out of that, I just want something that works

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
So it is a real question. How can they get away with it? I genuinely love
Tesla as a piece of technology and I think they brought ridiculous amount of
progress to otherwise stagnant market.

That said, how is that legal? To me it is as bad as disabling brakes or
changing the way battery behaves.

News like that make me hate the future.

------
ashleyn
I guess the real question is, is autopilot a _service_ (i.e. requiring
realtime use of remote infrastructure) or is it a _feature_ that functions
independently? In the second example, Tesla would be just arbitraging legal
curiosities surrounding EULAs, which is kind of shitty.

------
TheBillyMania
Yep Tesla is committing an unforced error. Yanking shit from a purchased car
is uncool. Since somebody payed for that feature, it has value. Tesla should
have cut a check to the present owner for the value of the feature that was
being removed. Bad move Tesla.

------
JohnFen
This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I avoid hardware or software that
phones home and/or engages in automatic updates. I can't imagine a
circumstance where I'd buy a Tesla or any other vehicles that are controlled
by the manufacturer.

------
mnm1
That's beyond fucked up. This essentially guarantees no market for second hand
Teslas in the future. It was already questionable with the battery situation
whether these cars would sell on the used market after say $100k miles or
whatever the initial battery is limited to before it dies and requires an
expensive replacement. But now it's clear. I certainly won't be buying this
garbage. This is not revolutionary. With no resale market, I doubt they are
even more environmentally friendly than ICE cars which can and are resold and
won't need expensive battery replacements. This is devolution not evolution.
So much for Musk's genius. He seems more like the typical silicon valley
billionaire asshole that he truly is every day.

~~~
knorker
Read the article. _Nobody_ paid Tesla for these features. The title implies
that the owner change triggered the disabling, but that's not at all what
happened here.

~~~
resoluteteeth
The dealer bought the car from Tesla with the features enabled, so I would say
that they did actually pay Tesla for them.

~~~
knorker
Read the article again.

------
RickJWagner
Wow. My takeaway: Buy direct from Tesla, or risk having a sub-optimal ride.

Seems a bit evil to me. I can't imagine another car manufacturer penalizing
you for buying from somewhere else.

------
aphextim
VaaS (Vehicle as a service) coming to all vehicle and tractor manufacturer's
near you!

~~~
ProZsolt
I wouldn't mind it. I would be fair and square. You could have two options:

1\. Buy a car as is: Pay your car upfront. No updates after purchase

2\. VaaS: No upfront cost. Constant updates, monthly payment.

This current situation why I hate IoT devices. You pay upfront and hope they
still provide the service after n years. It makes no sense for me, why would
somebody provide a service without an ongoing revenue.

~~~
foepys
You can already have that right now. It's called leasing. After a few years
you give the car back and get a new one.

~~~
aphextim
I recall a documentary where they had a bunch of Electric vehicles out on
lease. The company wanted to take all the vehicles back off the market so they
went to all the owners to take the cars away.

The owners liked the vehicles so much they offered to buy them outright from
the company so they could at least keep the cars they liked.

They raised the few million needed to pay off everyone's lease.

Company refused and took all the cars away anyway.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F)

~~~
unishark
I remember that story. Basically GM ran a little EV business for a while, then
cancelled the project. Then were attacked and hated far more than, say,
everyone else in the world who never bothered making EV's in the first place.
Always seemed warped to me.

------
14
This makes me wonder if someone could jailbreak these cars and offer the
features for free. Seems like for $7000 for a feature there must be huge
incentive to do so.

------
thomasedwards
Wasn’t there an article recently about someone ordering this feature
accidentally, and Tesla saying it was non-refundable? Talk about having your
cake and eating it.

------
overgard
I will never buy a Tesla based on this. Just, wow.

~~~
rchaud
I've done the same with Adobe CC products. The second they implemented the
SaaS model to please Wall Street analysts and their recurring revenue
obssession, I started looking at alternatives.

Adobe Animate -- > Hype Professional (one-time fee) Adobe Illustrator -->
Affinity Publisher (one-time fee)

For music, I just gave up on Spotify entirely and now purchase either vinyl or
buy MP3 albums on Bandcamp, which fortunately houses the types of independent
artists I prefer anyway.

------
_ph_
Update: it seems that Tesla agrees with most commenters here :) and in the
meantime reactivated the autopilot on this car.

------
user00012-ab
Isn't this the same as saying I bought a used smart TV from someone and it
didn't come with their Netflix account?

------
iancmceachern
This, and Elon's treatment of his first wife are why we wont be buying any
Tesla products.

------
Forgivenessizer
Serious question: Are any Teslas compatible with openpilot?

~~~
edude03
The older ones with first gen autopilot are, yes

------
jacquesm
Can they do this while the vehicle is driving?

~~~
jlbooker
No. It requires an over-the-air update to be installed. Car must be parked.
There are some YouTubers who have managed to start an update while driving..
It's obviously not recommended. The update install doesn't start without the
driver pushing a button though.

------
binaryblitz
Jalopnik has been shitting on Tesla and the EV industry for years. This
article is 100% sensationalized for the clicks and benefit of their owners.

~~~
bttw2
It reads like a fact-based, non biased article to me. I suspect you agree with
this assessment too which is why you resorted to attacking the blog's owners
instead of trying to disagree with any parts of the story.

------
pm24601
And this is why i will not buy a Tesla... but I will buy their stock.
Companies with sh!tty consumer attitude do well.

~~~
salawat
So what you're saying is you like companies with shitty consumer attitude?
Because that right there is exactly how you get them and ruin the business
landscape for everyone else.

I mean, you're incentivizing the behavior by extending them the funding to
operate. "The Market" is you, and you are "the Market".

~~~
pm24601
Well, sadly yes. Amazon is a horrible company
([https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-
wo...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-
protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse)) in many ways. Yet the stock has
made Jeff Bezos a bizzilionaire.

I have no plans to ever work for Amazon even as a software developer - but I
wish I had bought the stock.

I held Wells Fargo for awhile - specifically because they bragged about how
good they are about extracting fees from customers. I would never bank with
them, I use credit unions exclusively.

With the Trump deregulation mania encouraging stuff like this
([https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/florida-weed-killer-
sprayi...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/us/florida-weed-killer-spraying-red-
tide/index.html)) I will need lots of money to escape as a climate refugee.

------
nnq
Tesla might be "the F-35 of personal autos", but it kind of makes sense for
have the AI part of a product be SaaS. The company invested a ton in R&D, and
it's also liable for the damages (including deaths!) that the feature might
produce if it malfunctions (hence they'd want it disabled after N years period
where supporting it is no longer cost effective - even the fact that a city's
roads configuration drastically changes 10 years in the future independent of
the car could make the self-driving system unsafe, it's a systems issue here,
no longer and "isolated product"!).

We're probably going to start seeing this more and more with "truly smart"
devices... Though we do need ways to re-sell software licenses for firmware
and stuff while they are still supported, even if separately from the actual
hardware.

~~~
2rsf
Makes sense or not, it should be clearly stated in your purchase contract and
made public.

~~~
mgoetzke
The feature in this case was never payed for it seems. By nobody. It was wrong
to list the car as having the feature. Which is why it can be deactivated, BUT
this means the buyers have a right to return it up the chain to whoever made
the mistake first.

~~~
tomatocracy
The buyer (and perhaps the dealer) did pay for the feature though when they
bought the car with it described as having the feature.

------
aaron695
I love the way everyone takes this at face value and it's just true now.

I guess it's why we have fake news, just say it once.

It's clearly a mix-up they will fix.

It's probably when software updates happen it checks to see what to update on
the account and deletes everything else.

But lets not think to hard. Not like anyone here has made a mistake coding or
had to deal with middle managers.

And there are clearly issues with the ability to remote delete, Kindles had
their OMG Amazon is deleting books period, and it sorted itself out.

It also allows you to get updates, that's pretty OMG too quite frankly.

~~~
JohnFen
> It's clearly a mix-up they will fix.

Perhaps. But speaking for myself, that's not the point. The point is that this
is a great example of the risks of having stuff that can be updated by the
manufacturer. We see similar things happening (albeit at lower price points)
in software all the time.

This is an example of why I object to software that phones home and/or engages
in automatic updates. It puts far too much control in the hands of companies.

~~~
aaron695
> I object to software that phones home and/or engages in automatic updates

But Tesla's don't auto update. So it's not on topic.

We have to stay in reality.

Updates push us forward. It comes with risks but so far the rewards outweight
the risk.

Elon made a car that can update! That's fucking amazing. It's what he does.
Changes the game. Makes NEW things that push everything forward. It's a new
way of thinking.

These comments seem straight from TSLAQ but sadly don't seem to be from that
intelligent evil which would be interesting! just seems like stupidity.

A $50 billion+ company that works on reputation will ruin that for $7000?

~~~
JohnFen
> But Tesla's don't auto update.

Good to know -- so users can simply elect not to accept updates? What about
when Tesla changes the operating characteristics of the car, is that always
optional? Is accepting the change this article is talking about optional?

If so, then I have no objections, although I will still never buy a Tesla or
any other vehicle that phones home.

> Updates push us forward. It comes with risks but so far the rewards
> outweight the risk.

Perhaps. But as long as it's the owners who get to decide whether or not the
risk is worth it, that's fine. If the manufacturer gets to make that decision,
that's not fine at all.

