they f**ked up Tesla locked a customer's car out of 1/3 of its battery capacity for a $4.5k ransom

[wanderingfool2]

To everyone arguing this as well, has it ever occurred to you the following could legitimately be the scenario in this case.  Second owner loses Tesla Network due to the 3G.  They bring it to one of these services that can unlock the range, and gets it unlocked from 60 to 90.  Since it have no connectivity the Tesla Network daemon cannot send the command to revert the changes.  Now the resell value is a lot more.  New owner purchases it, and gets the MCU replaced to be able to utilize the Tesla Network features, eventually the daemon comes across it flags the system and then reverts it.

 

6 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

There's zero reason Tesla should get to do so.

CONTRACTS.  I don't get how people can't get their head around this point.  It's simple as that.  The guy connected his vehicle to Tesla services, the terms clearly states they are allowed changing software configurations.  End of point, they are legally allowed to do it.  If you are trying to argue against it, then argue why someone should be allowed to void that section of their contract.  I've quoted at least one of the terms which literally says they can make software modifications without prior consent.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

No,  simply no.  I connect to the internet, does that give my ISP rights to block content they have no contract with? nope.

Why not, it's quite literally in the terms of service (which the guy literally agrees to by connecting the vehicle to Tesla Services).  If you sign up with the ISP and agree that they can filter your connection then guess what...they can filter your connection.

 

It should be noted, that the guy has the option to disable Tesla Services and have the 90 kWh, but guess what...he doesn't want that compromise.  He's literally wanting his cake and eating it to.

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Connecting to the tesla network does not give them the right to downgrade performance.   The only right Tesla might have (big might too) is to deny use of the tesla network while the batteries are not locked to 60Kw.   

The contract states otherwise.  Windows for example ships with features that exist in software that you cannot access without pro licenses etc.

 

Quote

We may update or modify the software contained in your Vehicle from time to time, and we may do this remotely without notifying you or seeking your consent

So tell me, how do you propose that Tesla isn't allowed to do it when their terms clearly states the above.  This would be the agreement that he agreed to.  It's also a software change that caps the batteries capacity.  Unless you are like Leadeater and somehow think a software configuration counts more towards hardware and they have no rights to modify a software that links to hardware (despite the contract literally spelling it out that the can modify software on the vehicle)

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

If telsa want to limit the batteries to 60Kw then they should install 60Kw batteries (it's cheaper for them and lighter for the customer). 

Except that means a completely different battery line, it also then prevents the upsale of added range to those who realize they might want it.  That argument also ignores other reasons, such as how Texas and Fremont facilities are now producing vehicles with suspected different capacities, but having it listed as pretty much the same.  The reason is they don't want the osborne effect to happen (since the Texas vehicles can't be produced at high enough quantity as the plant just opened, yet the batteries being used in it are the next generation they software sandbag it to be the same; so that later they could also offer range increases but doing so only at a time when they have shifted full production to Texas instead of Fremont)

 

6 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

That Tesla has started charging high rates to use their "SuperCharger" feature (I guess that's a subscription service, too, now, another bullshit power move).

Now that one is just stupid if you are seriously considering the raising of SuperCharger rates to be power move.  Literally price of energy has been increasing.

 

6 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Is anyone here aware that the average cost of battery replacement for EVs and hybrids far outweighs any savings on fuel

Tesla's cost per kWh has been steadily decreasing, with the new 4680 batteries when in full production expected to be well below the current decreasing trend.  Also, you are aware that if you are going to start factoring in battery replacement cost then you need to also consider things like having your engine redone, odds of cat. converter stolen (trust me it's costly), overall it's about a wash unless you can charge at home or in a place like I am where energy rates are pretty low and gas high at which point EV's make a whole lot of sense [which is likely why we have the highest density of Tesla's and EV's in NA]

[An0maly_76]

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

CONTRACTS.  I don't get how people can't get their head around this point.  It's simple as that.  The guy connected his vehicle to Tesla services, the terms clearly states they are allowed changing software configurations.  End of point, they are legally allowed to do it.  If you are trying to argue against it, then argue why someone should be allowed to void that section of their contract.  I've quoted at least one of the terms which literally says they can make software modifications without prior consent.

The day an attorney is needed to scrutinize any 'contract' to buy a vehicle like this is the day that manufacturer needs to stop selling cars. Consumers will only put up with this for so long. A little too much like the film "Hardwired" if you ask me.

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Why not, it's quite literally in the terms of service (which the guy literally agrees to by connecting the vehicle to Tesla Services).  If you sign up with the ISP and agree that they can filter your connection then guess what...they can filter your connection.

Again, consumers will only put up with this for so long.

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Now that one is just stupid if you are seriously considering the raising of SuperCharger rates to be power move.  Literally price of energy has been increasing.

And the consumer's cost of energy has been increasing too. And Tesla will be profiting over the consumer's cost of energy, since they already exhibit a zeal for putting their hands in their customer's pockets.

12 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Tesla's cost per kWh has been steadily decreasing, with the new 4680 batteries when in full production expected to be well below the current decreasing trend. 

You do realize you just contradicted yourself, don't you?

[wanderingfool2]

20 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

You do realize you just contradicted yourself, don't you?

Not contradiction, maybe bad at clarifying a difference, but cost per kWh usage is different than cost per kWh battery.  Cost of a kWh of electricity is rising, cost of producing a battery capable of storing energy is lowering.

 

20 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

The day an attorney is needed to scrutinize any 'contract' to buy a vehicle like this is the day that manufacturer needs to stop selling cars. Consumers will only put up with this for so long. A little too much like the film "Hardwired" if you ask me.

You don't need an attorney, it's quite clearly laid out [i.e. it boils down to, did you pay for the service?  Did you pay for a specification?  If the answer is no, then you don't get it.  if the answer is yes then  you get it].  Also consumers will put up with it, because guess what...similar things have been going on for years.  Dealerships losing money on sales of vehicles because they can lock customers into servicing contracts.  Dealers not "having the vehicle on hand" so the customer can wait a long time or choose the upgraded option to get it today.  etc.

[An0maly_76]

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

To everyone arguing this as well, has it ever occurred to you the following could legitimately be the scenario in this case.  Second owner loses Tesla Network due to the 3G.  They bring it to one of these services that can unlock the range, and gets it unlocked from 60 to 90.  Since it have no connectivity the Tesla Network daemon cannot send the command to revert the changes.  Now the resell value is a lot more.  New owner purchases it, and gets the MCU replaced to be able to utilize the Tesla Network features, eventually the daemon comes across it flags the system and then reverts it.

 

Oh, I just couldn't imagine why the second owner sold this abomination...

  

12 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Not contradiction, maybe bad at clarifying a difference, but cost per kWh usage is different than cost per kWh battery.  Cost of a kWh of electricity is rising, cost of producing a battery capable of storing energy is lowering.

 

My point is that the consumer's cost per kwH to charge these batteries has increased as well. EVs are not nearly as 'green' as people are being led to believe. In fact, there's virtually nothing 'green' about EVs when you consider the emissions created throughout their life cycle, from their beginnings facilitated by huge non-emission diesel engines displacing many tens of litres, generating electrical power for large electric motors powering huge loaders and quarry trucks that mine dozens of tons of excavated dirt at a time, from which the raw materials are processed. And what of the additional environmental damage from the mining itself?

 

The engines in this equipment burn diesel at the rate of gallons per hour, without emissions equipment, as they are not for highway use, and likely put out more collective emissions in a month than any of these cars will save in ten lifetimes. That's before you count the emissions created in building the car, before you count the emissions created in manufacturing replacement batteries, and before you count the increased emissions from power plants to keep up with increased demand on a power grid already on the brink of failure in some areas. So how DARE you, Greta? If there's one thing I can't stand, it's a hypocrite, but it's so much worse when they're too ill-informed to know they're a hypocrite.

 

Not to mention the utility companies will surely double and triple their rates once they realize they control everything.

 

And to force the customer to pay more for the illusion that they are saving the environment? The whole thing is a scam. Always has been. Just look up mynissanleaf.com to see how problematic those are. Trust me, GM's Bolt is hardly alone in its troubles. And Tesla's day is coming. There are a few reports of replacement batteries / battery cells costing enough to fuel a typical ICE vehicle between 100k-200k miles.

 

You see, I did a paper on related issues in college. And my sources indicated that 98% of so-called "greenhouse" emissions were from power plants and manufacturing, not ICE vehicles. A study I cited took over 100 vehicles from the model year 1968. Yes, 1968. Before EGR, electronic ignition, ethanol fuel, fuel injection, or any of this other wonderful stuff that gives mechanics nightmares and makes us wonder why they charge so much. Of those 100-plus non-emission vehicles, fewer than 1% failed emissions tests.

 

For independent confirmation, I checked with a friend who was taking auto repair classes at the same college. He said just for argument's sake, his 1961 Studebaker pickup truck (carbureted flathead inline-six with point ignition and no emissions equipment) was tested on their emissions "sniffer" test apparatus, and ran cleaner than a 1994 Eagle Talon (with full factory emissions equipment intact) that had been donated to the college for a practice vehicle.

 

It also happens that I am a former long-haul truck driver, and have seen a hybrid vehicle or two catch fire. I also know several commercial tow operators that all say they tow at least two to four Teslas to a charging station each week -- with diesel-powered rollback wreckers. So I'm quite confident that the EV as we currently know it (yes, even Tesla) will sufficiently prove to be the failed experiment it was always doomed to be. So contracts, licenses, software updates are irrelevant, it's all a sham. It's only a question of how long it will take before people realize they've been had.

Edited July 31, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[mr moose]

59 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

To everyone arguing this as well, has it ever occurred to you the following could legitimately be the scenario in this case.  Second owner loses Tesla Network due to the 3G.  They bring it to one of these services that can unlock the range, and gets it unlocked from 60 to 90.  Since it have no connectivity the Tesla Network daemon cannot send the command to revert the changes.  Now the resell value is a lot more.  New owner purchases it, and gets the MCU replaced to be able to utilize the Tesla Network features, eventually the daemon comes across it flags the system and then reverts it.

 

CONTRACTS.  I don't get how people can't get their head around this point.  It's simple as that.  The guy connected his vehicle to Tesla services, the terms clearly states they are allowed changing software configurations.  End of point, they are legally allowed to do it.  If you are trying to argue against it, then argue why someone should be allowed to void that section of their contract.  I've quoted at least one of the terms which literally says they can make software modifications without prior consent.

 

Why not, it's quite literally in the terms of service (which the guy literally agrees to by connecting the vehicle to Tesla Services).  If you sign up with the ISP and agree that they can filter your connection then guess what...they can filter your connection.

 

It should be noted, that the guy has the option to disable Tesla Services and have the 90 kWh, but guess what...he doesn't want that compromise.  He's literally wanting his cake and eating it to.

 

The contract states otherwise.  Windows for example ships with features that exist in software that you cannot access without pro licenses etc.

 

So tell me, how do you propose that Tesla isn't allowed to do it when their terms clearly states the above.  This would be the agreement that he agreed to.  It's also a software change that caps the batteries capacity.  Unless you are like Leadeater and somehow think a software configuration counts more towards hardware and they have no rights to modify a software that links to hardware (despite the contract literally spelling it out that the can modify software on the vehicle)

 

Except that means a completely different battery line, it also then prevents the upsale of added range to those who realize they might want it.  That argument also ignores other reasons, such as how Texas and Fremont facilities are now producing vehicles with suspected different capacities, but having it listed as pretty much the same.  The reason is they don't want the osborne effect to happen (since the Texas vehicles can't be produced at high enough quantity as the plant just opened, yet the batteries being used in it are the next generation they software sandbag it to be the same; so that later they could also offer range increases but doing so only at a time when they have shifted full production to Texas instead of Fremont)

 

Now that one is just stupid if you are seriously considering the raising of SuperCharger rates to be power move.  Literally price of energy has been increasing.

 

Tesla's cost per kWh has been steadily decreasing, with the new 4680 batteries when in full production expected to be well below the current decreasing trend.  Also, you are aware that if you are going to start factoring in battery replacement cost then you need to also consider things like having your engine redone, odds of cat. converter stolen (trust me it's costly), overall it's about a wash unless you can charge at home or in a place like I am where energy rates are pretty low and gas high at which point EV's make a whole lot of sense [which is likely why we have the highest density of Tesla's and EV's in NA]

 

Again, just no.  there was no contract between tesla and the owner when the owner bought the vehicle.   Tesla have (according tot he article) backed down and offered to revert it to 90Kw again without charge.   They know it was wrong, consumer backlash said it was wrong and to continue arguing that manufacturers should have the right to alter products you own is dictatorship at best and unethical at worst.   If a consumer cannot buy  a car that does not come with a lifetime penalty that the maker can control the features and charge to unlock them then the consumer has ZERO choice.  This does not end well no matter how you try to argue manufacturer rights.

 

And also it does not cost more nor require a whole new line to offer smaller batteries.   I don't know why this concept is hard to accept.   Power tools have been doing this since the nicad days.  Car makers have been doing this with engine options since the model T.   It just is not a thing that it costs more to offer more options.  In fact the reverse is true, putting a 90Kw pack in a car and locking it to 60Kw costs a lot more than making a 60Kw pack using the 90Kw frame and only packing it with 60Kw of batteries.    

 

Also it is nothing like windows or any other non tangible product.  That has been shown not to be a valid comparison too many times.

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again, just no.  there was no contract between tesla and the owner when the owner bought the vehicle.

And you simply ignore the fact he literally got the MCU replaced to be able to connect ot Tesla Services.  Which has that exact clause.  So again, you don't get to say Tesla doesn't get to do it when it's spelled out clear as day that they are within their rights to.  If the guy didn't want to agree with that, then he is more than welcome not to use the Tesla App, not to have connectivity on his vehicle and get the configuration changed...but he doesn't want that.  He signed up for the Tesla service so it's tough luck on him.

 

Also, under you logic selling a laptop with Windows the person can use the Windows for whatever purposes because there isn't a contract between the owner and Windows.  The fact is contracts can travel with

 

  

16 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It just is not a thing that it costs more to offer more options.  In fact the reverse is true, putting a 90Kw pack in a car and locking it to 60Kw costs a lot more than making a 60Kw pack using the 90Kw frame and only packing it with 60Kw of batteries.    

It's literally been some of the discussion points within the shareholder meeting.  You also have multiple sources that mention similar things.  So yea, it costs more to keep a 90kWh battery lineup, a 60kWh battery lineup.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And you simply ignore the fact he literally got the MCU replaced to be able to connect ot Tesla Services. 

I did not ignore that, I think that is irrelevant.  Tesla should have zero clauses is the whole point we are making.   Many of us believe it is basicaly anti consumer on the surface and illegal at a deeper level (certainly in many of countries we live in)

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Which has that exact clause.  So again, you don't get to say Tesla doesn't get to do it when it's spelled out clear as day that they are within their rights to.  If the guy didn't want to agree with that, then he is more than welcome not to use the Tesla App, not to have connectivity on his vehicle and get the configuration changed...but he doesn't want that.  He signed up for the Tesla service so it's tough luck on him.

 

And you are ignoring the fact that he complained, did not like it, and that Tesla reversed the limit.  So it seems this concept you have that it is their right and that the consumer just has to wear it is limited to your personal opinion.

1 minute ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Also, under you logic selling a laptop with Windows the person can use the Windows for whatever purposes because there isn't a contract between the owner and Windows.  The fact is contracts can travel with

Again with trying to compare software/services to tangible products.   Contracts cannot travel and I'd like a citation showing any legal precedence (in any country) that shows a purchase contract that permits to the maker to retain control over a devices performance.

[wanderingfool2]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

And you are ignoring the fact that he complained, did not like it, and that Tesla reversed the limit.  So it seems this concept you have that it is their right and that the consumer just has to wear it is limited to your personal opinion.

Tesla only reversed it after getting a lot of heat for it.  Reversing of a decision doesn't mean they were in the wrong, just that they didn't want to deal with it.  At my place of work we ended up doing similar things tons of times not because we were wrong but because it just would eat up too much manpower to fight it over a few cases.

 

So far you have yourself, Leadeater and many other professing that they aren't allowed doing it.  Yet all of you seem to be blind to the fact that the contract literally allows them to do it.  It doesn't matter what your feelings are about it, they can legally do it...it does no good spouting out half truths that they can't.

 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Tesla should have zero clauses is the whole point we are making.   Many of us believe it is basicaly anti consumer on the surface and illegal at a deeper level (certainly in many of countries we live in)

That's laughable, that you think that.  I clearly stated that contractually they were allowed and you, leadeater and multiple other people flat out said I was wrong.  So no, it's not about making a point because you, Leadeater and multiple others clearly stated that I was wrong when I was pointing out that they are legally allowed to.  Name one country that it's illegal in...or is this another one of those "Tesla's not allowed to do it"; where you are just pushing your own biases as truth.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Tesla only reversed it after getting a lot of heat for it.  Reversing of a decision doesn't mean they were in the wrong, just that they didn't want to deal with it.  At my place of work we ended up doing similar things tons of times not because we were wrong but because it just would eat up too much manpower to fight it over a few cases.

 

So far you have yourself, Leadeater and many other professing that they aren't allowed doing it.  Yet all of you seem to be blind to the fact that the contract literally allows them to do it.  It doesn't matter what your feelings are about it, they can legally do it...it does no good spouting out half truths that they can't.

 

That's laughable, that you think that.  I clearly stated that contractually they were allowed and you, leadeater and multiple other people flat out said I was wrong.  So no, it's not about making a point because you, Leadeater and multiple others clearly stated that I was wrong when I was pointing out that they are legally allowed to. 

You haven't given any citations for your claims or actually shown why Tesla have the right to make physical performance alteration to an existing product they don't own.   One of the reasons companies lay down and reverse decisions like this is because they know they will lose in court.  It happens more often than not.

3 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Name one country that it's illegal in...or is this another one of those "Tesla's not allowed to do it"; where you are just pushing your own biases as truth.

It's illegal in Australia.  Consumer law clearly states that a company cannot reverse, remove or prevent a product from functioning or utilize "unfair contract terms".

 

Unfair contracts:

https://business.gov.au/Products-and-services/Fair-trading/Australian-Consumer-law#unfair-contract-terms

 

changing preventing a product form performing:

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations#consumer-guarantees-applying-to-goods

 

Especially this bit in combination with unfair contracts:

 

Quote

Businesses that sell goods guarantee that those goods:

...

come with undisturbed possession, so no one has the right to take the goods away from or to prevent the consumer from using them

I'll repeat that:  they come with undisturbed possession, that means no maker can disturb my ownership of said product. 

 

 

Locking out 1/3rd of your battery and asking for $4500 or not being able to use their services ticks enough boxes. 

 

And I believe EU law is similar. 

 

You are literally advocating that manufacturers can take 100% control of what you use, how well you can use it and how much you pay over time (sometimes ongoing and indefinitely).  

 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You haven't given any citations for your claims or actually shown why Tesla have the right to make physical performance alteration to an existing product they don't own.   One of the reasons companies lay down and reverse decisions like this is because they know they will lose in court.  It happens more often than not.

I've literally quoted the line that says they are allowed to make software changes.  You want another example of something similar, the Meltdown/Spectre windows updates that had % effects on performance.  Windows 10 forced that update onto people, so are you now saying they don't have the right.

 

The guy used Tesla services, and Tesla services as I have quoted gives Tesla the expressed permission to modify software as they deem fit.

 

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's illegal in Australia.  Consumer law clearly states that a company cannot reverse, remove or prevent a product from functioning or utilize "unfair contract terms".

 

Unfair contracts:

https://business.gov.au/Products-and-services/Fair-trading/Australian-Consumer-law#unfair-contract-terms

 

changing preventing a product form performing:

https://www.accc.gov.au/business/treating-customers-fairly/consumers-rights-obligations#consumer-guarantees-applying-to-goods

That law I doubt would invalidate the clause in the contract.  First, the good sold is a S60, not an S90.  So it's not preventing the use of the item being sold.  Otherwise under your concept of the preventing, any Model S60 would be in violation (as all S60's have at least 75 kWh batteries).

 

The software modification likely doesn't fall under an unfair contract either.  Also, the term is void not illegal in this case.  I mean out of all the considerations listed that is used to determine, you could argue an imbalance of the client and business but given they are correcting a product to match what it was sold as I doubt that even that would have any bite.

 

Simple fact, it was sold as an S60.  It is a S60, and they simply reverted it become a S60 through a clause in the contract that allows them to.  That portion of the contract wouldn't be voided by the laws you mentioned in this case.  The fact it was sold to the guy as a S90, just means the other sells should be in trouble.

 

  

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Locking out 1/3rd of your battery and asking for $4500 or not being able to use their services ticks enough boxes. 

No it doesn't.  He wasn't entitled to the 90kWh of the battery, he was entitled to 60kWh.

[An0maly_76]

10 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Tesla only reversed it after getting a lot of heat for it. 

 

He wasn't entitled to the 90kWh of the battery, he was entitled to 60kWh.

No, they reversed it because they knew that the logic employed was bullshit.

 

People like you with this sheep-like, "Thank you, sir! May I have ANOTHER?!" mentality are part of the problem.

 

 

I don't know which is worse, people with that mentality, or the ones that rail against capitalism, but demand that the government take care of them, from behind the safety of their iPhones while they wait in line at Starbucks.

 

Say it with me slowly, the manufacturer does not and should not have control of the vehicle configuration after its sale as new.

Edited July 31, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I've literally quoted the line that says they are allowed to make software changes. 

Not when those changes are solely so they can charge him $4500 to reverse them.    It's not merely "software changes",  Those changes had large real world impacts on the products performance and that was the only reason they were made. 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You want another example of something similar, the Meltdown/Spectre windows updates that had % effects on performance.  Windows 10 forced that update onto people, so are you now saying they don't have the right.

 

That's not another example,  that's another false comparison, spectre and meltdown were mitigating real world issues,  what tesla did was create an artificial restriction in order extort $4500 from the customer. They did not fix anything, repair anything or even do something that had any legitimate link to any other part of the vehicle. 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The guy used Tesla services, and Tesla services as I have quoted gives Tesla the expressed permission to modify software as they deem fit.

But that doesn't give them the right to do what they did.  You seem to stuck on this concept that engaging the services of tesla means they can legitimately do this.  You haven;t shown any precedence or laws that make this legal.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That law I doubt would invalidate the clause in the contract.  First, the good sold is a S60, not an S90.  So it's not preventing the use of the item being sold.  Otherwise under your concept of the preventing, any Model S60 would be in violation (as all S60's have at least 75 kWh batteries).

 

The software modification likely doesn't fall under an unfair contract either.  Also, the term is void not illegal in this case.  I mean out of all the considerations listed that is used to determine, you could argue an imbalance of the client and business but given they are correcting a product to match what it was sold as I doubt that even that would have any bite.

Again, it's not just a software modification.  You keep throwing that around like it stops right there. The product was altered by the manufacturer and performs less than it did before he engaged their services.  This is as black and white as it gets under Australian consumer law. 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Simple fact, it was sold as an S60.  It is a S60, and they simply reverted it become a S60 through a clause in the contract that allows them to.  That portion of the contract wouldn't be voided by the laws you mentioned in this case.  The fact it was sold to the guy as a S90, just means the other sells should be in trouble.

 

He was sold an s60 with a fully working 90Kwh battery pack.  The model number is irrelevant.   If I buy a cordless drill and the previous owner had upgraded the battery from 3Ah to 6Ah does makita have the right to remove the 3Ah?  Of course not.  It was not their battery to remove, just like this was not Tesla's battery to cripple.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  

No it doesn't.  He wasn't entitled to the 90kWh of the battery, he was entitled to 60kWh.

 

He absolutely was entitled to the full 90 Wh that the car had when he bought it.  You are literally arguing that a person who buys any product that isn't exactly factory stock is somehow not entitled to that products improvements.    

 

I just can't get my head around that reasoning. 

[tikker]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Whilst I agree, again we find people defending the indefensible.  If telsa want to limit the batteries to 60Kw then they should install 60Kw batteries (it's cheaper for them and lighter for the customer).   They are not saving money or doing the customer any favors by installing a heavy $4500 option every time and then hoping enough customers pay to use it.   

I don't know how the balance works out in terms of e.g. environmental impact, but yeah it's seems a bit of a waste of resources for the 60 model to be an artificially locked 90 model. The benefit I could see is that for those that 30% could be used a "wear leveling" capacity.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I've literally quoted the line that says they are allowed to make software changes.  You want another example of something similar, the Meltdown/Spectre windows updates that had % effects on performance.  Windows 10 forced that update onto people, so are you now saying they don't have the right.

 

Meltdown/Spectre was a security mitigation, so like with the hurricane there were extraneous circumstances. Additionally, Microsoft/Intel announced that they were rolling out updates for it as far as I remember, they didn't call you after the fact just saying there was 'a bug' that they silently rectified. Parties can say whatever they want in contracts, but unfair or unlawful statements are void. I classifiy silently being allowed to degrade performance unfair at the very least, whether it's justified in the end or not. In the 1.5M settlement lawsuit the plaintiff bases themselves on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act why they shouldn't be allowed to just randomly without permission access your machine and change your performance (note these aren't rulings, just counts building the plaintiff's case for which eventually the 1.5M settlement as agreed upon):

Quote

https://www.classaction.org/media/rasmussen-v-tesla-inc_1.pdf
145. The CFAA also establishes liability against whomever: “knowingly causes
the transmission of a program, information, code or command, and as a result of such
conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization to a protected computer” (§
1030(a)(5)(A)); “intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and
as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage (§ 1030(a)(5)(B)); or “intentionally
accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct,
causes damage and loss. (§1030(a)(5)(C)).

154. The Class vehicles are “computers” in under the CFAA by virtue of Tesla’s
vehicles containing Media Control Unit” (MCU) which provides data processing, GPS,
communication functions, amongst others and serves as the receiving end of Tesla’s
over-the-air software updates.
155. The Class vehicles are also “protected computers” under the CFAA because
they are used in and affect interstate and foreign commerce and communication,
including through contact and communication with remote servers, personal and business
usages that affect interstate and foreign commerce, and because Tesla’s vehicles are
powered and maintained by computers which ensure that Tesla vehicles can operate and
drive in furtherance of the stream of interstate and foreign commerce.

157. Tesla violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) by knowingly causing the transmission
of vehicle software updates 2019.16.1 and 2019.16.2 to Plaintiff and the putative class
members’ vehicles to access, collect, and transmit information to vehicles, which are
protected computers as defined above. By transmitting information and software updates
to the vehicles, Tesla intentionally caused damage without authorization, or at the very
least, exceeded the authorization to Plaintiff and the other putative class members’
vehicle by impairing the ability of the vehicles to operate as warranted, represented, and
advertised by Tesla.

 

4 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

To everyone arguing this as well, has it ever occurred to you the following could legitimately be the scenario in this case.  Second owner loses Tesla Network due to the 3G.  They bring it to one of these services that can unlock the range, and gets it unlocked from 60 to 90.  Since it have no connectivity the Tesla Network daemon cannot send the command to revert the changes.  Now the resell value is a lot more.  New owner purchases it, and gets the MCU replaced to be able to utilize the Tesla Network features, eventually the daemon comes across it flags the system and then reverts it.

I guess it depends on what you deem more likely and which party you deem trustworthy. What evidence do we have that this battery fraud happened? Many things are possible, but at this point we are just extrapolating speculations (including my feeling that they should've had the chance) on what happened based on the little information we have.

[wanderingfool2]

5 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

People like you with this sheep-like, "Thank you, sir! May I have ANOTHER?!" mentality are part of the problem. I don't know which is worse, people with that mentality, or the ones that rail against capitalism, but demand that the government take care of them, from behind the safety of their iPhones while they wait in line at Starbucks.

Look at this thread, you have so many people who just assume they know Tesla isn't allowed to.  It doesn't matter of opinions.  It's just like the foolishness of people attacking me for saying that while I disagree with the law the journalist is allowed to prosecuted for hacking.  The fact is plan and simple, people can't argue that Tesla has no legal position when they clearly do.  It also wasn't Tesla who sold the vehicle as a S90.  No different from someone selling you a cable box that gets you all the channels and getting in a huff when the cable company sends a signal to disable it.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

Not when those changes are solely so they can charge him $4500 to reverse them.    It's not merely "software changes",  Those changes had large real world impacts on the products performance and that was the only reason they were made. 

He was getting a feature, yes it's a feature, of extended range.  Which is clearly a purchase item in the SOFTWARE.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's not another example,  that's another false comparison, spectre and meltdown were mitigating real world issues,  what tesla did was create an artificial restriction in order extort $4500 from the customer. They did not fix anything, repair anything or even do something that had any legitimate link to any other part of the vehicle. 

They fixed a configuration issue.  They didn't create an artificial restriction, it was a restriction that wasn't enabled that was suppose to be enabled.  You can never really get a true 100% analogy that doesn't have some "holes" in it.  If you claim is they don't have the right to make changes to a physical object, then you can't have it that they aren't.  The fact is they offer the upgrade as an add-on post buying a S60 [for those who want the option, which they found the majority of people ended up doing which is one of the reasons it was discontinued].

 

Like seriously, would you think Tesla was wrong if the previous owner hacked the 90 kWh battery while the vehicle was offline, knowing full well that if it ever went back online they would likely detect it and reverse it?  That seriously could be the case here.

 

6 hours ago, tikker said:

I don't know how the balance works out in terms of e.g. environmental impact, but yeah it's seems a bit of a waste of resources for the 60 model to be an artificially locked 90 model. The benefit I could see is that for those that 30% could be used a "wear leveling" capacity.

While the weight makes a difference, there is a chance from the 90kWh to 60kWh the weight changed (not sure if they changed the cell type between that time, I think they did).  So they might have been approx the same weight (but just a guess).  Even with that said, regen braking is like 80-90% efficient on a Tesla I believe.  So the factor of addition weight is not as big of an issue (but EV's are bad at towing because of drag, not necessary the added weight).

 

6 hours ago, tikker said:

they didn't call you after the fact just saying there was 'a bug' that they silently rectified

If the 60 to 90 happened where the vehicle was offline, it could very well have been a daemon just running standard checks at a fixed time.

 

6 hours ago, tikker said:

I classifiy silently being allowed to degrade performance unfair at the very least, whether it's justified in the end or not. In the 1.5M settlement lawsuit the plaintiff bases themselves on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act why they shouldn't be allowed to just randomly without permission access your machine and change your performance (note these aren't rulings, just counts building the plaintiff's case for which eventually the 1.5M settlement as agreed upon):

But it's similar to what I said in a previous one, when I mentioned it (prior to it being posted), that those people actually had a case.  While they could change it through the software, doing so would be a breach of contractual duties which in that case would like void that clause making them liable.

 

6 hours ago, tikker said:

I guess it depends on what you deem more likely and which party you deem trustworthy. What evidence do we have that this battery fraud happened? Many things are possible, but at this point we are just extrapolating speculations (including my feeling that they should've had the chance) on what happened based on the little information we have.

But that was part of my arguments earlier that we don't know the situation...yet people do what people do when they hear Tesla and pull out their pitchforks assuming the article is correct.  It's like the time where I had to face abuse for being a "tesla sheep" for defending the Tesla crash, because people kept using the argument "the sheriff said no one was driving in the front seat and the vehicle was driving itself" [NHTSA concluded there was someone in the front seat driving].

 

The fact is it's from a source who also would benefit of the added exposure

[dizmo]

On 7/27/2022 at 7:23 PM, Vishera said:

Forgetting is not intentional.

Tesla chose to give the 90KW/H battery to the first owner.

They forgot to soft cap it. Which sounds like they have one size of battery to help in manufacturing. Or they just didn't have any smaller ones to install. 

[An0maly_76]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Look at this thread, you have so many people who just assume they know Tesla isn't allowed to.  It doesn't matter of opinions.  It's just like the foolishness of people attacking me for saying that while I disagree with the law the journalist is allowed to prosecuted for hacking.

 

Look at this thread, you have so many people disagreeing with you because you just assume Tesla is allowed to. It doesn't matter of opinions.

 

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It also wasn't Tesla who sold the vehicle as a S90.  No different from someone selling you a cable box that gets you all the channels and getting in a huff when the cable company sends a signal to disable it.

 

Except that anyone with a brain knows that buying a cable box with all the channels is sketchy at best. They know it's stealing cable. Show me one shred of evidence that the owner knew the vehicle was modified. You can't, because you weren't there, and you weren't involved. And I hardly think the customer would have raised such a stink about it if they knew.

 

Bottom line, once a vehicle is sold new, the manufacturer and / or dealer have no more claim to alter anything on said vehicle without owner's consent, BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER OWN IT. Same goes for remote updates that alter your car without your knowledge or consent. This is basically the same thing as a mechanic making repairs you didn't authorize. It's not simply bad business to alter a customer's car to reduce its functionality when they didn't request it, IT'S ILLEGAL on both counts.

 

Example. I own a fairly new Toyota with the tried-and-true 6-speed auto transmission, Now, let's say it gets totaled. Maybe I can't find a suitable replacement and buy the car back to retain salvage, and find a 2007 model, replacing its infamous 2.4L junker and 5-speed auto with my existing engine and six-speed auto, using all my factory wiring, electronics and emission controls, effectively upgrading the powertrain / drivetrain to an OEM emissions and safety-compliant package that complies to newer emissions and fuel economy standards. Obviously Toyota didn't sell the car like that new. But as modified, it violates no law.

 

So let's say I take my 2007 Toyota with its engine and trans swapped from a later model with tighter standards for emissions, safety and fuel economy, in for service at a Toyota dealer. What you're saying would justify the dealer later updating the electronics remotely while the car sits in my driveway -- while I sleep, even -- to disable the transmission's sixth gear without my consent, thereby reducing my fuel economy and travel range -- something they legally cannot do. Why, you ask?

 

1) Altering a compliant vehicle's engine tuning and transmission shift programming to adversely affect fuel efficiency and travel range is technically tampering with federal emissions equipment -- a felony with punishments in the following statute language:

 

"Violators are subject to civil penalties up to $45,268 per noncompliant vehicle or engine, $4,527 per tampering event or sale of defeat device, and $45,268 per day for reporting and recordkeeping violations"

 

2) I own the car outright.

3) Neither Toyota nor the dealer had claim to anything on the car once it left the dealer lot new, especially after the warranty expired.

4) Altering a customer's vehicle without their authorization is against the law, it falls under performing work not authorized by the owner. Toyota certainly couldn't charge me for it, nor can they legally charge me to put it back like it was.

5) The car was not in Toyota's possession at time of such modification, nor did I authorize Toyota to do it.

 

Full stop. It isn't legal in any way, shape or form, and calling it a software update doesn't change ANY of that. And before you start to argue again, the Tesla situation technically falls under an emissions equipment tampering violation. Why? An electric car needing more frequent charges will use more power to charge over less time for less work done, thereby increasing its carbon footprint. Not to mention the extra 300 lbs of lithium it carries reduces effective range as well, also increasing its carbon footprint.

 

Now, can a Toyota dealer or any other shop refuse to service the car because its mechanicals are no longer factory 2007-spec? Sure, but most shops won't have a problem with it if the swap uses all the factory components and doesn't violate safety or emissions standards.

 

Now for a real and similar situation. My Camry has been upgraded from its factory cartridge oil filter to a spin-on oil filter to reduce start-up wear and extend engine life. Four oil changes, two dealers and one shop later, it still wears the adapter, replacing only the spin-on filter. Why? BECAUSE THE SHOP AND DEALER KNOW THEY CANNOT LEGALLY ALTER MY CAR IF IT DOES NOT VIOLATE EMISSIONS, SAFETY, OR FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS -- which it does not. However, as previously stated, what Tesla did technically increases the car's carbon footprint over time due to the more frequent need for charges, which could technically be an indirect emissions tampering violation.

 

20 hours ago, leadeater said:

Die on this hill if you want, I'll die on this hill as well. Your argument thus far did not pass muster.

Not to mention even a moderator is indirectly saying the software argument is bullshit. @leadeaterif quoting you in this context violates any rule I'm unaware of, feel free to remove it. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, just making a point.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

Not to mention even a moderator is indirectly saying the software argument is bullshit. @leadeaterif quoting you in this context violates any rule I'm unaware of, feel free to remove it. I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, just making a point.

Unless acting in moderation capacity everyone on this forum are all equal members and all opinions are equal, just keep that in mind. So it's on every person to present arguments or evidence for their opinions, whether or not the intent is so change another's opinion.

 

Also I do agree that due to the sale agreement with Tesla that they can update their software whenever they please however they please, but my opinion on that stops at only affecting software traits and characteristics of the vehicle. Once the line is crossed in to altering actual attributes of the physical components of the vehicle then I utterly disagree the contract allows that.

 

Just in the same way two SSDs with near identical components can and are sold as different physical products/goods of different capacities i.e. 480GB datacenter SSD (with the power loss capacitors) and a 512GB consumer SSD (without the power loss capacitors). When both have the same PCB, NAND Flash, Controller and other miscellaneous electronic components and differ primarily in firmware which yes is software it results in a different physical product/good sold under a different designation and price.

 

Altering the battery capacity of an EV is in my eyes literally the same as the above, you crossed the software only affect realm therefore the difference is not "only software".

 

Then you need to bring in property ownership rights and what the laws around that are. Since Tesla does not own the vehicle what they are legally allowed to do, irrespective of any contracts because non-legal contract terms are not legal (real shocker I know), does not allow them to do whatever they please whenever they please to a vehicle not owned by them.

 

As the owner of the vehicle you are legally allowed to do whatever you like to it so long as you do no breach anything like Intellectual Property laws and reverse engineering is not illegal so you can legally do whatever you want to any part of your Tesla be it physical or software and Tesla has zero legal recourse to do anything about it. Patent law where/if relevant is the only legal protection Tesla has here and that only applies beyond personal use aka Trade Rights.

 

So Tesla in my opinion only had the right to demand that the battery capacity be returned back to 60kwh to be allowed to use any of their services, absolutely not have the right to change it without consent.

[LAwLz]

I think we have reached the irrational "car cult" mentality that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

It's like logic and reason gets thrown out the window as soon as the subject of cars gets brought up.

 

 

No point in trying to discuss with people who don't listen to reason.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think we have reached the irrational "car cult" mentality that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

It's like logic and reason gets thrown out the window as soon as the subject of cars gets brought up.

 

 

No point in trying to discuss with people who don't listen to reason.

Has zero to do with car culture. SSD, house, plant, robotic dog, I'd have the exact same argument

 

Irrational "software culture", back at you too. Not that either means a damn thing at all.

 

You don't listen to reason at all either, so yea, two way street if you want to try complaining about that.

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Has zero to do with car culture. SSD, house, plant, robotic dog, I'd have the exact same argument

 

Irrational "software culture", back at you too. Not that either means a damn thing at all.

 

You don't listen to reason at all either, so yea, two way street if you want to try complaining about that.

I am not the one claiming that changing an int variable is a "hardware change" and therefore a software license agreement doesn't apply.

 

I am not sure if I missed your response or if you never answered me.

Is upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro a hardware upgrade in your opinion?

[An0maly_76]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think we have reached the irrational "car cult" mentality that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

It's like logic and reason gets thrown out the window as soon as the subject of cars gets brought up.

 

 

No point in trying to discuss with people who don't listen to reason.

 

And it's hard to take someone seriously who uses an InterNet acronym as a username and can't even spell it right.

  

14 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not the one claiming that changing an int variable is a "hardware change" and therefore a software license agreement doesn't apply.

 

I am not sure if I missed your response or if you never answered me.

Is upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro a hardware upgrade in your opinion?

Upgrade, no. But when it begins limited how the hardware can be used, that is a hardware crippling -- aka "change". And it is not doing its job properly.

Edited July 31, 2022 by An0maly_76
Revised, more info

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not the one claiming that changing an int variable is a "hardware change" and therefore a software license agreement doesn't apply.

 

I am not sure if I missed your response or if you never answered me.

Is upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro a hardware upgrade in your opinion?

I'm not that one claiming that this is "software only" that it is absolutely unquestionably covered by the sales agreement clause.

 

I have very clearly and logically explained how and why it affects hardware and is not "software only".

 

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Is upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro a hardware upgrade in your opinion?

Irrelevant. Bring out a billion different examples, this is about this situation not those other billion. What applies in a different situation does not carry across to others, hence irrelevant.

[LAwLz]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I'm not that one claiming that this is "software only" that it is absolutely unquestionably covered by the sales agreement clause.

 

I have very clearly and logically explained how and why it affects hardware and is not "software only".

But the only thing that was changed was the software. Tesla did not do physically alter the hardware through the Internet, right?

The owner did not download a new battery. What was downloaded was a change to a variable in the code. That was it. What changed was purely software.

 

 

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Irrelevant. Bring out a billion different examples, this is about this situation not those other billion. What applies in a different situation does not carry across to others, hence irrelevant.

Ah, so you never answered it and refuse to answer it. Got it. I'll stop asking you now since you don't want to answer.

I, and probably most people, define "hardware change" according to the dictionary defintiions.

Change - Altering or modifying.

Hardware - A physical object that exists in the real world.

 

If the atoms that makes up the battery were not touched, then it is not a hardware change.

 

Software on the other hand, is the order of 1s and 0s stored and/or used by a computer. In this example, that was the only thing that changed.

 

 

You can keep calling it a hardware change if you want, but the dictionaries will not agree with you.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

But the only thing that was changed was the software

So, this isn't the ultimate retort you think it is. And no it was not the "only" thing that was changed.

 

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I, and probably most people, define "hardware change" according to the dictionary defintiions.

I, and most people read sentences to ascertain meaning and don't purely and only select out words to argue dictionary meaning as if that has any baring of what was being said at all.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, An0maly_76 said:

 Upgrade, no. But when it begins limited how the hardware can be used, that is a hardware crippling -- aka "change". And it is not doing its job properly.

Good, so you agree with my on what I am debating right now.

 

Changing a variable in a file is a software change. That is all I am debating at this point in time.

Whether or not the change was justified or not is a separate debate. Personally, I think it was a shitty move and I am glad that Tesla gave him back the 90kWh battery software.

But please note that the software did do its job properly. Its job is to make the customer pay more to upgrade the product they have bought. It's the same reason why Microsoft has two SKUs of Windows, Home and Pro, and artificially lock certain features out from the Home version. 

 

The only reason why Tesla even developed the software to limit a 90kWh battery pack to 60kWh is so that they can change customers more and make more money.

The only reason why Microsoft even developed a cut down version of Windows 10 Pro (called Windows 10 Home) was so that they can change customers more money.

 

It sucks for us customers, but companies will do these kinds of things to maximize their profits.

The biggest question mark I got from this entire topic is why people react so violently to it happening with cars when some of the same people have defended the same practices for software companies like Microsoft before. When I say they should only make one version of Windows and remove the whole Home vs Pro thing then people get mad at me and say things like "but Microsoft has to make money". Yet when Tesla tries to profit from locking software behind paywalls then everyone loses their shit.

 

I don't see why people are okay with Microsoft changing extra if you want to use two CPUs, or a certain amount of RAM, when it is purely a software lock.

I don't see why the same people who are okay with Microsoft locking me out of my CPU and some RAM are not okay with Tesla locking someone out of part of their battery.