Tesla Remove Software Features from Used Model S

[captaindyson]

So it seems Tesla are trying to set a questionable president with regards to what a used market is entitled to with products they buy.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/6/21127243/tesla-model-s-autopilot-disabled-remotely-used-car-update

 

To summarise, a used car dealer bought a model S from a Tesla run auction with autopilot as an advertised feature and proceeded to sell it to a buyer with the same features advertised. Teslas however decided (and ran an audit to enact) that if you have not paid Tesla directly for the feature then you are not entitled to it and so disabled the feature while it was with the dealer and hence the buyer missed out.

 

This takes the issues of automatic software updates to a whole new level and i have to wonder if it is even legal? Does anyone know if the autopilot functionality is "sold as a service"?

 

I think the article sums it up pretty well with:

Quote

Even with a technology product like a laptop or smartphone, updates generally can’t be forcibly rolled back without the consent of the owner — unless the device has special IT software installed. In those cases, the company generally owns the device or has the owner sign a legal agreement anyhow.

And even setting aside all of the anti-consumer points that this raises, it just hurts the electric car market as it increases depreciation of the cars and hence makes the economic choice to buy one harder due to it costing more in real terms.

[Dabombinable]

But Tesla were paid for the software...by the original owner... 

[3vitor]

6 minutes ago, captaindyson said:

This takes the issues of automatic software updates to a whole new level and i have to wonder if it is even legal? Does anyone know if the autopilot functionality is "sold as a service"?

When your company is a pioneer on the market with almost no laws directly aimed at your business it's only plausible you would do that...

 

This is as greedy as greedy can get.

 

We need proper regulation on this...

[porina]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

But Tesla were paid for the software...by the original owner... 

The future: you don't own the car, you license it.

[Thorium19]

man, this is an appalling precedent tesla are setting here. Once something has been purchased from the manufacturer/first dealers with a feature, then those features should remain on the vehicle unless there is a serious risk by having them, eg. a major software security issue or a newly discovered flaw.

If I want to lease a car for its features, I'll get it on PCP, but if I buy a car outright, I'd expect it to keep all its features even after I've sold it.

[Blademaster91]

The software should be sold with the car, not a software agreement the person buying a used car should have to purchase. And the anti-consumer stance Tesla has towards repair is enough reason to not want one, but imagine the cruise control not working in a used car because you didn't buy it from the dealer or buy the software license.

[Kilrah]

So if the autopilot license is with the user and not the car that means you don't need to buy it again when you change your car to a newer one, right?

Would be fun to counter them with that in court.

[porina]

23 minutes ago, VegetableStu said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_Entitlement

not being a dense bellend here; this is our system of car ownership (take that as you will)

I have to admit negligence on my part of Singapore's car ownership system, but my post was half joking about software rights and applying that to cars.

[Franck]

From technical standpoint it's fair but never has been exploited before. Any software can come with license an agreement and probably all but Tesla put such in their sales document. Thing is they could allow by forcing a new license agreement to be signed by the new owner but again that is their own right to deny use of their software to anyone they seem fit.

 

All that being said i still find that a very very cheap move. I would rather prefer they request the new owner to sign a new license agreement without special requirement or cost.

[Bombastinator]

I’m wondering if this has something to do with it specifically being autopilot Software and some sort of emdemnification issue.  The autopilot stuff has liability issues and the used dealer thing could have created a liability cutout.  I don’t know if this happened, I’m just guessing at possible reasons for this otherwise strange behavior.  Clearly a better solution is needed because this one causes problems.

 

Im also wondering if early model Tesla’s had more advanced autopilot software then newer ones.  This whole thing has the odor of missing information about it.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, VegetableStu said:

imagine paying for a smartphone and then having first-party functionality disabled because "the software agreement was addressed to the initial owner" ._.

Well, smartphones already come with irremovable  bloatware, forced updates and/or mandatory updates to retain some functionality (i.e., you lose functionality if you don't update), including battery-saving tuning down of the processor...

 

Together with streaming services/online stores, smartphones have spearheaded this trend.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

42 minutes ago, Franck said:

From technical standpoint it's fair but never has been exploited before. Any software can come with license an agreement and probably all but Tesla put such in their sales document. Thing is they could allow by forcing a new license agreement to be signed by the new owner but again that is their own right to deny use of their software to anyone they seem fit.

 

That depends on the legal environment. For example, Valve lost a case in France precisely about this: the court rule it is not in their right second-hand buyers the right to use software they distribute in their platform, regardless what is written in the license (since license < law).

[Franck]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Well, smartphones already come with irremovable  bloatware

Not irremovable

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

forced updates

It's call security update for most part.

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

and/or mandatory updates to retain some functionality (i.e., you lose functionality if you don't update), including battery-saving tuning down of the processor...

Never seen such a case before. Do you have any example, i am very curious.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 2/7/2020 at 2:46 PM, Franck said:

Not irremovable

It is irremovable. You can remove it somehow, sure. Probably you can hack your way into enabling autopilot into second-hand Teslas too...

 

Quote

It's call security update for most part.

*called

It's really irrelevant what they call them, does not change the point.

 

Quote

Never seen such a case before. Do you have any example, i am very curious.

You must live under a rock Apple sent an update to older phones that throttled their processors to prevent unexpected shutdowns of units with degraded batteries...

[LeSheen]

2 hours ago, porina said:

The future: you don't own the car, you license it.

I didn't know blizzard had plans to start "selling" cars.

[pas008]

Dmca 

You never own the software

I think

Really isn't anything new except for tesla joining a side

www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/amp

[weeblord]

I don't really think what Tesla is doing will be viable for the company, but at the same time I totally get why Tesla is doing this. If they allowed Autopilot on resold cars, dealers could just buy new Teslas and sell them in their own environment.

[GoodBytes]

6 hours ago, porina said:

The future: you don't own the car, you license it.

A growing number of people in US and Canada Lease cars, (with current trend it will reach a majority in a few years), instead of buying them, as they have no money. So it is already like that. This is also why your GM's Ford Chrysler and so on don't last. Cost a lot, bit really low leasing rates. Perfect car you lease for 3-4years and goes at the bin.

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

Dmca 

You never own the software

I think

Really isn't anything new except for tesla joining a side

www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/amp

It's stupid. It's not like you can transplant software to another Tesla. It's like OEM Windows on lets say laptops. It's tied to hardware and for as long as hardware is the same, it doesn't matter how many owners it changes. You can't install that key somewhere else. And when laptop dies, so does the Windows license with it.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Most people in US and Canada Lease cars, instead of buying them, as they have no money. So it is already like that. This is also why your GM's Ford Chrysler and so on don't last. Cost a lot, bit really low leasing rates. Perfect car you lease for 3-4years and goes at the bin.

I've never given ownership much thought before. Most people I know own their cars because it is cheaper in the long term. These people will buy a used are typically over 3 years old, then run it until it becomes uneconomic to do so. Of course, there still needs to be new cars bought to feed the used car market.

 

I think what you call a lease is something car dealers push here too, where an actual lease is more something businesses use. There's a low deposit (10%?) and monthly payments. At the end of the contract, typically 3 years, you either pay off the balance and keep it, or hand it back and start all over again with a new car. In this scenario, while you're legally responsible for having the car (including maintenance) you don't own the car itself. People tend to not think about the deposit once it is paid, and the monthly payments are low enough not to matter. I actually got my current car through this method, but instead of handing it back I decided to pay it off and keep it. Had I handed it back, it would have effectively cost me 20% of its new value each of those 3 years. I've owned the car for 6 years, so even if it was worthless now, its effective cost per year is less than that. The only disadvantage, the car isn't "new" but it is still fine.

 

In the days before this, more typically you take out a loan or similar finance plan to buy the car outright, and make payments on that. 

[captaindyson]

1 hour ago, weeblord said:

I don't really think what Tesla is doing will be viable for the company, but at the same time I totally get why Tesla is doing this. If they allowed Autopilot on resold cars, dealers could just buy new Teslas and sell them in their own environment.

But how would they turn a profit? Nobody would buy from a dealer if they can get it for the price the dealer bought it at direct from Tesla.

 

And on the many points people have noted about leasing cars - that is all well and good if that was what was happening. If you leased a car direct from Tesla and when the time was up you gave it back then tesla resold or re-leased it without the software upgrades (appropriately advertised of course) then that is their prerogative. But in this case they don't own the car (as they would in a lease), ownership was transferred to the dealer with the advertisement including the autopilot.

It would be like buying a house and then a few days later someone comes along and removes all your windows and doors because you did not pay the builder of the house for them!

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

Most people in US and Canada Lease cars, instead of buying them, as they have no money. So it is already like that. This is also why your GM's Ford Chrysler and so on don't last. Cost a lot, bit really low leasing rates. Perfect car you lease for 3-4years and goes at the bin.

Source for that? As far as I can tell, you're wrong by a large margin.

 

Disclaimer, these stats are for the USA only:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/453122/share-of-new-vehicles-on-lease-usa/

From 2017 to 2019, the average Lease vs Buy for a new car is about 30%. Far less than half.

 

And that doesn't even account for used cars. I can't find any specific stat on new vs used car sales per year, but what stats I can find indicate that the vast majority of car purchases are used:

https://pdf4pro.com/fullscreen/facts-and-statistics-on-the-used-motor-f88be.html

 

Most people finance their cars - sure. Especially new ones. Because people can afford a monthly payment, but don't have $25-35K just lying around.

 

Edit: On topic - I think the buyer should take Tesla to court about this. As far as I'm aware, the Autopilot fee is a one time fee. And the first sale doctrine should ensure that the owner is entitled to all features (non subscription based, of which Autopilot qualifies) present on the car before the sale took place.

 

I'm a moderate Tesla fan. They make cool cars. I like the fact that they are heavily pushing the EV industry forward. But I don't agree with this decision.

[bcredeur97]

So Tesla wants to destroy the used car market .... got it.

That's against what they are trying to solve in a way since it creates more waste.

[weeblord]

1 hour ago, captaindyson said:

Nobody would buy from a dealer if they can get it for the price the dealer bought it at direct from Tesla.

Well yeah, but Tesla also may want to limit in what nations their cars are being sold, and the volume of the cars sold in the countries they do sell them in. For instance, let's just say that Tesla doesn't want anyone buying their cars in Russia(just for the sake of example). But then some Russian dealer buys from Tesla, and ships it to Russia. They then sell the cars at a price that's not overly inflated, but still enough to turn a profit.

 

See what I mean? They will make a profit because the OEM is not selling direct to the country, and that dealer is the only way to get a Tesla in Russia.

[ARikozuM]

I'm pretty sure this goes against first-sale doctrine. Another example of companies not knowing where else to make money except by removing old "standards".