Electric cars are the future

Page: 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Online now: Betonhaus, Bing (sucks), Google [Bot], Kirk, maurvir, Pariah
Post Reply
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
In the future, cars will be solar powered! we're closer than we think!

Image
ukimalefu posted:
In the future, cars will be solar powered! we're closer than we think!


I wonder when this was created and how far in the future they thought this would be possible.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
General Motors? didn't they sell Hummer to a car company from India? or was it China?
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
General Motors? didn't they sell Hummer to a car company from India? or was it China?

Iirc they tried but was blocked by the chinese government because it doesn't meet their emission standards
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
OK, OK, not quite specifically an electric car problem, but Tesla remotely disables Autopilot in used Model S.

This car was sold with one sales point being that it had Autopilot, but coincidentally just after the sale Tesla sent out a software update to all cars which disabled Autopilot for this particular car because that feature was not originally included.
Pariah Know Your Enemy
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
OK, OK, not quite specifically an electric car problem, but Tesla remotely disables Autopilot in used Model S.

This car was sold with one sales point being that it had Autopilot, but coincidentally just after the sale Tesla sent out a software update to all cars which disabled Autopilot for this particular car because that feature was not originally included.

As "right to repair" bills continue to be pushed across the nation the tactic of charging extra for un-gimping software features is going to have a hard go of things. Remember when Apple disabled the built in dual monitor support on low end Powerbooks but a clever dev created a solution for that?

Like that but for cars.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
OK, OK, not quite specifically an electric car problem, but Tesla remotely disables Autopilot in used Model S.

This car was sold with one sales point being that it had Autopilot, but coincidentally just after the sale Tesla sent out a software update to all cars which disabled Autopilot for this particular car because that feature was not originally included.


Tesla is being stupid here, and I hope they get pounded in court over it. However, the real problem is that they are turning off actual customers and wrecking any goodwill they might have had. In this case, the previous owner had paid for those features, so the new owner should have had them as well.

As much as I credit them with getting EVs into the popular consciousness, I really hope a more serious car company eats their lunch.
While officially Tesla hadn't yet fully explained what is going on here, I guess it will come down to what is being sold by Tesla.

If this used Model S had Autopilot mistakenly activated when it should not have been, I guess this would be OK...BUT the dealer who first bought this used car should be given a refund from Tesla for that omission, most of which (or more) he should pass on to his customer, or that any of these purchases should be cancelled with all moneys refunded and the car returned to Tesla's virtual used car lot. Either would go a long way to settle this matter in Tesla's favor.

On the other hand, it appears that Tesla is trying to argue that Autopilot was purchased by the original OwnerX, so that all subsequent owners Y and Z and so forth must pay for this feature separately. That places a considerable discouragement on Autopilot from having any REsale value AND a significant block for anyone considering a Tesla to include Autopilot--which is $8 K in the US market--in the first place.

If the latter argument proves to be true, of course it should also be argued that OwnerX--being "enhanced" by Autopilot--can tell Tesla that any Tesla car he buys from the company should have Autopilot active for free. Good luck with that.
DEyncourt posted:
While officially Tesla hadn't yet fully explained what is going on here, I guess it will come down to what is being sold by Tesla.

If this used Model S had Autopilot mistakenly activated when it should not have been, I guess this would be OK...BUT the dealer who first bought this used car should be given a refund from Tesla for that omission, most of which (or more) he should pass on to his customer, or that any of these purchases should be cancelled with all moneys refunded and the car returned to Tesla's virtual used car lot. Either would go a long way to settle this matter in Tesla's favor.

On the other hand, it appears that Tesla is trying to argue that Autopilot was purchased by the original OwnerX, so that all subsequent owners Y and Z and so forth must pay for this feature separately. That places a considerable discouragement on Autopilot from having any REsale value AND a significant block for anyone considering a Tesla to include Autopilot--which is $8 K in the US market--in the first place.

If the latter argument proves to be true, of course it should also be argued that OwnerX--being "enhanced" by Autopilot--can tell Tesla that any Tesla car he buys from the company should have Autopilot active for free. Good luck with that.

It should be one or the other. Either the car has Autopilot no matter the owner or the owner has autopilot no matter the car.
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
Lame ass BS. Selling everything as a "service" rather than a product. The practice should be banned under penalty of trading places with an unsentenced possession chargee in Rikers.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
This practice should be prosecuted as grand theft.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Jalopnik has a copy of the sheet that was provided with the car when it was sold and it clearly states that it has the now removed features. It's pretty clear that a mistake was made, but it was made by Tesla, not the dealer. They altered the vehicle, reducing its value, after the sale, and that is what will get them in trouble.
ukimalefu dysfunctional
User avatar
Tesla owner says remotely disabled Autopilot features have been restored

Quote:
Tesla has restored the Autopilot driver assistance features it remotely disabled on a used Model S, just days after Jalopnik published a story about the customer’s ordeal.

The owner, who Jalopnik simply referred to as Alec, confirmed to The Verge that the features are back after The Next Web spotted new Tesla Motors Club forum posts he wrote earlier this week. Alec said he was contacted by a Tesla customer experience rep who “apologized for my troubles, told me that Tesla has restored all missed options” and “cited a miscommunication” as the reason why the company pulled the Autopilot features in the first place.

Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
If it weren't for those darn kids...
Nice passive voice "miscommunication" for which no one has to take/give blame.

IF I decide to buy a Tesla, you can bet beforehand that I will be closely questioning that original statement from Tesla customer support to the buyer:
Quote:
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. We apologize for the confusion. If you are still interested in having those additional features we can begin the process to purchase the upgrade.

[bold added]

Especially the implication that Autopilot may not be included in a given car being sold used.

Mind you: I don't want anyone to be fired. If the above was another "miscommunication" then I want it to be replaced by clear policy from Tesla that any and all SOFTWARE options in a given Tesla vehicle will ALWAYS be included (short of any which require hardware upgrades).
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Paying for an upgrade should make the car itself licensed for it. Turning all the options off and making subsequent owners pay again is double dipping. Even Microsoft isn't that tacky.
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
dv
User avatar
maurvir posted:
Paying for an upgrade should make the car itself licensed for it. Turning all the options off and making subsequent owners pay again is double dipping. Even Microsoft isn't that tacky.


EA is though.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
dv posted:
maurvir posted:
Paying for an upgrade should make the car itself licensed for it. Turning all the options off and making subsequent owners pay again is double dipping. Even Microsoft isn't that tacky.


EA is though.


Yeah, but EA? They can make Comcast executives feel a little better about themselves.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

Electric cars are the future

Page: 1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19