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

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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

What else was changed?

What did the update that was downloaded over the Internet change, other than software?

Remember, software is defined as the 0s and 1s that a computer processes.

Hardware are the physical components that makes up things we can touch.

 

Did the software update also physically alter the battery? Did it physically alter the battery so that it was no longer capable of holding 90kWh of charge?

 

 

If we asked the engineers at various manufactures which department were responsible for coding the function used by the OS to control how much of the battery capacity a user was allowed to use, which department do you think everyone would point at? The hardware department that are busy designing the physical design of the battery, or the software department that is programming the OS and its functions?

 

 

If something went wrong with the over the air update that limits the battery capacity, which department do you think would be scheduled to troubleshoot and correct the issue? The software engineers or the hardware engineers? 

[leadeater]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What else was changed?

The usable battery capacity 

[Vorg]

If it has a 90Kw battery, it has a 90kw battery and tesla is in the wrong for crippling it PERIOD!!

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

The usable battery capacity 

The usable battery capacity is the effect of the change, not the change itself.

Downloading a piece of software did not alter the hardware by changing the physical composition of the battery to only allow 60kWh of energy to be stored. The hardware is still EXACLY the same as it was before the upgrade. The software is what was changed. The 1s and 0s were the things that were altered, not the atoms that makes up the hardware that is the battery.

 

From a user's perspective these might seem like the same thing, and in practice they essentially are, but the distinction between "change" and "effect of change" is very important from a legal standpoint.

 

Upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro might cause the usable RAM amount to be altered, but the upgrade of the software does not alter the physical components that is the hardware. It is a software change that indirectly causes hardware to work differently from a user's perspective.

 

Changing the variable in the car's to read 90 instead of 60 might cause the usable battery amount to be altered, but the change to software does not alter the physical components that is the hardware. It is a software change that indirectly causes hardware to work differently from a user's perspective.

 

 

Just because the software alters how the user interacts with the hardware does not make a change a "hardware change", because ALL, every single thing you do in software, indirectly alters hardware.

Microsoft patching Word does not constitute a "hardware change" just because the CPU starts behaving differently (as in, it starts executing instructions in a slightly different order).

Upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro does not constitute a hardware change either. 

 

 

Again, which department do you think would be scheduled to fix an issue with the battery limiting software if a bug was discovered? The software or hardware division?

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, Vorg said:

If it has a 90Kw battery, it has a 90kw battery and tesla is in the wrong for crippling it PERIOD!!

If my PC has two CPUs then it has two CPUs and Microsoft is in the wrong for crippling it PERIOD!!

[RedRound2]

7 hours ago, Vorg said:

If it has a 90Kw battery, it has a 90kw battery and tesla is in the wrong for crippling it PERIOD!!

I'm ignoring this particular situation, but I get that you are not used to the fact of hardware being locked. 

 

It makes sense for Tesla to cut down on their SKUs during mass production to eliminate extra costs. And eliminating 5 different battery packs from production line and reducing it to 2 helps a lot. But it also comes with the drawback of offering the customers the option for only two battery packs, inherently increasing the cost to the end consumer.

 

This is sort of a compromise. They will put in the same pack, but sell it to you at a lower margin rate for a software-locked hardware. We do this all the time in softwares these days (the code for all premium features already exists - they just need to give you access to it). And if it any point, the customer has some extra disposable income, they can significantly improve their car with a push of a button, eliminating the need for entire process of replacing batteries and service time (and I bet that would cost way more than 4500 USD).

 

Its a slippery slope, but for this situation and for something of a huge cost like the battery pack, I feel its justifiable. But if things go too far, like how BMW piloted subscription for heated seats, then I'm with you. And I guess the only way to control this is with legislation

[wanderingfool2]

  Important for anyone reading this as well: The guy could have reverted it back to 90 kWh capacity, but it would mean having to disable his Tesla Services (as was mentioned, they flipped it to 90 kWh but Tesla Services flips it back to 60 kWh, so disabling Tesla Services fixes it).  He didn't want that

 

 

13 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

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.

I specifically quoted a contract clause in Tesla that allows them to do precisely that.  Just because people's opinion is that a software configuration is classified as a hardware modification doesn't mean that legally it isn't a software configuration, especially given that it's literally an option that you can purchase...because guess what, by definition changing the software to do such is a change to the software which quite clearly is spelled out they are legally allowed to do.

 

If Tesla wasn't allowed to do so, then what could happen is someone who has their battery warranty about to expire would intentionally burn out their battery to get the 90 kWh battery and then just have a hacker change it to the 90 S model.

 

13 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

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.

He was purchasing an used vehicle, he could simply look at the vehicle history.  It should clearly state that it was a S60 so it being sold as a S90 should start raising red flags.  If it's being sold as a S90 and wasn't connected to the Tesla network don't you think the guy should be a bit of due diligence and check with Tesla to see what features are enabled on it (especially given that he was going to connect it to the Tesla network).  A simple check would have flagged the issue prior to purchase.

 

13 hours ago, An0maly_76 said:

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

It's literally in the contract.  Please stop pretending like there isn't the clause that says they can do it without consent.

 

8 hours ago, Vorg said:

If it has a 90Kw battery, it has a 90kw battery and tesla is in the wrong for crippling it PERIOD!!

Nope.  It's not that simple, if he didn't want that then he should have checked to see whether or not connecting it to Tesla services would have done so.

 

Also as an example of why they wouldn't want to as well.  They are now producing vehicles in Texas that have a higher capacity but are software limited because the new battery tech is still in the scaling process.  The new batteries likely cost the same or cheaper, but have a higher capacity.  This would create an issue in that they can't really just sell the new Texas ones, but can't really create a new SKU for them (for fear of the osborne effect).  So they nerf it with software to keep the models the same.

 

They literally have vehicles where you can purchase, and then later purchase the upgrade for extended range.  I understand that in it allows them to sell a cheaper model, knowing that x% of people will likely upgrade.  It also is a good way to allow people to get around the tax credits (like they offered a lower class, which falls into getting the tax credit and then the person can purchase the upgrade separately later...since the full price would no longer qualify for the tax credits).

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

But if things go too far, like how BMW piloted subscription for heated seats, then I'm with you. And I guess the only way to control this is with legislation

meh, if BMW removes the purchase option I would agree, but if they have a purchase option I dont actually care.  The reason I say this is that I regret not getting heated seats in my vehicle (and the cost to add afterwards is way too high).  I'd prefer it not raising the base price, and having the option to purchase it (at a cheaper rate) than to purchase a vehicle and having to decide at that point if I wanted a feature...then regretting it and realizing I have to pay a whole lot more to add it after.

 

1 hour ago, RedRound2 said:

It makes sense for Tesla to cut down on their SKUs during mass production to eliminate extra costs. And eliminating 5 different battery packs from production line and reducing it to 2 helps a lot. But it also comes with the drawback of offering the customers the option for only two battery packs, inherently increasing the cost to the end consumer.

Yea, I don't think people understand how much that can change things.  Tesla very much tries to completely streamline their production model.  Producing 60kWh batteries would mean they would have to produce visible % less vehicles (means you have to keep that production space instead of switching it to the newer versions).  Battery production in the literal sense is a major limiting factor at the moment for EV's.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

  Important for anyone reading this as well: The guy could have reverted it back to 90 kWh capacity, but it would mean having to disable his Tesla Services (as was mentioned, they flipped it to 90 kWh but Tesla Services flips it back to 60 kWh, so disabling Tesla Services fixes it).  He didn't want that

Do you have a source on that?

I must have completely missed that part of the story, but if that is the case then I will absolutely think that Tesla were in the right here. I still think it was a shitty move, but they have full right to put in restrictions for if you want to use their subscription service.

If you want to use their subscription service then you have to comply with their rules. Just like I have to comply with Disney's or Netflix's rules if I want to stream movies from them. If they catch me for example streaming 4K video by using a software exploit instead of paying for the 4K subscription tier then I fully expect them to kick me out of the service, and rightfully so. Doesn't really matter that my TV is a 4K TV and that they are artificially crippling the hardware through software locks. 

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Do you have a source on that?

Part of the entire tweet thread that the guy originally posted.  The hacker mentions he can switch the vehicle to 90kWh but the Tesla switches back to 60kWh after a few seconds, unless it's disconnected from the Tesla Services.

 

So yea, he could remove it from Tesla's service to get it to 90; so it's like what I was saying earlier...the guy literally wants his cake and eat it to.

 

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I still think it was a shitty move, but they have full right to put in restrictions for if you want to use their subscription service.

I would say it all depends on the circumstances regarding this.

 

e.g. He purchased it after the 3G shutdown (which would be true), previous owner did the config changes to get 90kWh (as a example), new owner purchase MCU2, after a day or two the backend daemon fixes the configuration and Tesla notifies the guy.

Other e.g. Hurricane hits, previous owner gets extended range, somehow misses the config change reverting it.

 

Both those scenarios I don't have much issue with Tesla changing.  The warranty mistake one would be the only one I might think is bad, but at the same time if you purchase an used vehicle, you better do things like a history check.  If he did, he would have realized that it's a S60; and a simple inquiry to Tesla would have flagged that it is only entitled to 60 kWh.

[Spotty]

20 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The hacker mentions he can switch the vehicle to 90kWh but the Tesla switches back to 60kWh after a few seconds, unless it's disconnected from the Tesla Services.

20 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The hacker

The key here is that they are talking about hacking the vehicle to unlock the battery capacity. Judging by your other posts in this discussion I doubt you are seriously advocating for hacking the car.

 

22 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The warranty mistake one would be the only one I might think is bad, but at the same time if you purchase an used vehicle, you better do things like a history check.  If he did, he would have realized that it's a S60; and a simple inquiry to Tesla would have flagged that it is only entitled to 60 kWh.

What's the difference between a S90 and an S60 upgraded to an S90? Nothing, any checks would still show that it was originally sold as an S60 model. There's likely many cars out there that were originally sold as the S60 that were later upgraded. It would not be unusual to have a car that was originally sold as an S60 model which was upgraded so any new or potential owners wouldn't have any reason to suspect something were amiss if the vehicle was upgraded and functioning with the full battery capacity unlocked.

 

 

I haven't bothered responding to the last few pages of your comments in this thread because it is obvious you are ignoring the scenario that was presented and you are trying to change the narrative to scenarios that you feel would be more justifiable and easier for you to argue your point. You keep using these unfounded and baseless narratives trying to portray the current and previous owners as acting maliciously and negligently, and you are trying to portray Tesla as acting charitably and the victim. You are making up completely unfounded scenarios where Tesla in an act of charity unlocked the capacity of the battery in response to a natural disaster and claiming that the previous owner acted maliciously, and according to you intentionally stored the vehicle for years in an underground car park without signal reception to prevent the vehicle from accessing the network until the 3G network was switched off and they could sell it as an upgraded model to an unsuspecting victim, and you are also blaming the new owner for being negligent for not omnipotently knowing that the car which reported itself as having an unlocked 90kWh battery was somehow illegitimate despite the fact that it would have reported exactly the same as any other S60 which had a battery upgrade.

If you don't want to believe what was reported in the news articles and the tweets, then don't. That's perfectly fine. There's always 3 sides to every story and Twitter isn't exactly a reliable source. It wouldn't surprise me if there was more to this that we aren't aware of. However, that doesn't mean you can twist the truth and make up a fictitious series of events just because it better suits your agenda.

Whether you believe it's true or not, the scenario that is presented here is that a previous owner had the battery replaced under warranty by Tesla, and during that replacement Tesla failed to correctly install the battery causing it the battery to be left in an unlocked/unlimited state. The vehicle then sold, and it was only after the current (third) owner took the vehicle to a Tesla service centre Tesla realised that they never authorised an upgrade on the battery and several days later Tesla remotely limited the battery to 60kWh without the owners permission. The discussion most people in the thread are having is does Tesla have the right to make changes which limit the usable battery capacity, meanwhile you're making up hypothetical stories about hurricanes and underground parking garages saying if the owner of the vehicle is so upset they should have just hacked their car - which I'm sure you'd also argue they have no right to do.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But the only thing that was changed was the software.

 

No, the usable battery capacity was changed. This is so obvious I have trouble believing anyone is actually ignoring it.   Just because they used software to make the change doesn't make it a software only change.  If you follow that logic then hackers don't do any real world damage when they shut down oil pipelines because they are only making "software changes".  

[mr moose]

17 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

 

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

It's not a feature, its an artificially limited product he already had full legal use of.  Until you understand that the rest of your analogies and erroneous terms are just that. 

 

It was NOT a software only thing, it was not simply an update and it definitely was not a configuration issue.

 

 

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No, the usable battery capacity was changed. This is so obvious I have trouble believing anyone is actually ignoring it.   Just because they used software to make the change doesn't make it a software only change.  If you follow that logic then hackers don't do any real world damage when they shut down oil pipelines because they are only making "software changes".  

The usable battery capacity was changed, as a result of the softare being changed.

This is purely a software change. The effects of a software change might alter physical things, but it is still a software change. The update didn't alter the hardware in any way. The battery did not physically change from being able to hold 90kWh to only being able to hold 60kWh.

 

 

When did I say a software change can't do real world damage? Of course it can. But changing a variable from 90 to 60 in software does not make it a hardware change. It's still in software and as a result the laws and regulations that applies are the ones that are regarding to software.

 

 

Just because upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro alters the hardware I can access does not mean the software license agreement is nullified. Nor does it make it right to say I "upgraded my hardware" by installing the Pro version of Windows.

The change was still purely software related. The result of the software change affects the hardware, but so does literally every single software change. That does not make it a "hardware change".

 

 

 

  

Just now, mr moose said:

It's not a feature, its an artificially limited product he already had full legal use of.  Until you understand that the rest of your analogies and erroneous terms are just that. 

 

It was NOT a software only thing, it was not simply an update and it definitely was not a configuration issue.

The RAM and CPU limitations of Windows 10 Home are completely artificial.

Does that mean I am titled to download a crack that lets me upgrade from Home to Pro without paying? It's a hardware change, according to you and leadeater's definition, and since the license agreement from Microsoft only covers software it should not apply.

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The usable battery capacity is the effect of the change, not the change itself.

Which in a discussion about legal rights and owned property is a key critical factor. You cannot waive away that the capacity of a physical legally owned battery was reduced by a software change and then fly it under the guise of "it's just software". Are you 100% certain there is no legal grounds for argument? I'm sure as heck there is.

 

Many many things technically run and are controlled by software now days so we need to be real clear what is "just a software update" and what actually affects the product(s) or good(s) as there is always, always a difference when that is the case.

 

If Tesla pushed out an update and only allows 30% maximum breaking force would you say this is only a software update and they had legal grounds to do it? If you say yes then I have real fears for you logical and ethical capacity.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, which department do you think would be scheduled to fix an issue with the battery limiting software if a bug was discovered? The software or hardware division?

Actually does not matter at all.

 

If I just ignore what the software does then my argument is correct, big fat no on that one.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

The usable battery capacity was changed, as a result of the softare being changed.

This is purely a software change. The effects of a software change might alter physical things, but it is still a software change. The update didn't alter the hardware in any way. The battery did not physically change from being able to hold 90kWh to only being able to hold 60kWh.

The method of making the change is not on trial here, the act of making that change is.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

When did I say a software change can't do real world damage? Of course it can. But changing a variable from 90 to 60 in software does not make it a hardware change. It's still in software and as a result the laws and regulations that applies are the ones that are regarding to software.

"Of course it can", you know it can and that is exactly what happened here.   So instead of arguing for what is appropriate for consumers and what is ethical moving forward, you propose that under a very specific perspective it was "legal", even though US law, a preceding lawsuit and Teslas very quick about face has been posted in this thread that puts way more doubt on it being legal than the very real argument it is an incredibly dick move at best and fraud at worst.

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

Just because upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro alters the hardware I can access does not mean the software license agreement is nullified. Nor does it make it right to say I "upgraded my hardware" by installing the Pro version of Windows.

The change was still purely software related. The result of the software change affects the hardware, but so does literally every single software change. That does not make it a "hardware change".

Your never going to win an argument making the same analogies that people have already shown to be unequal.  

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Which in a discussion about legal rights and owned property is a key critical factor. You cannot waive away that the capacity of a physicals legally owned battery was reduced by a software change and then fly it under the guise of "it's just software". Are you 100% certainly there is no legal grounds for argument? I'm sure as heck sure there is.

Is Microsoft not allowed to lock down my RAM and CPU unless I pay the appropriate license fee?

They have been doing it for years and nobody seems to have been batting an eye.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You cannot waive away that the capacity of a physicals legally owned battery was reduced by a software change and then fly it under the guise of "it's just software".

 

Why not?

I physically own a 4K HDR TV. Is Netflix not allowed to limit the amount of pixels and colors my TV displays while using their service? They are not letting me use the full capabilities of my TV despite owning it, and they are imposing this limit purely in software.

 

 

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If Tesla pushed out an update and only allows 30% maximum breaking force would you say this is only a software update and they had legal grounds to do it? If you say yes then I have real fears for you logical and ethical capacity.

Now you are mixing in things I never even remotely argued. 

Where does this idea that I am okay with something just because it is a software change? It being a software change does not automatically mean it is okay and we should just roll over and take it.

There are plenty of software based practices, limitations and restrictions that I am very much against.

If Tesla pushed out a software update that limited the breaking capabilities then I would most likely be against it (unless it was some fix to the ABS system or something). But I wouldn't call it a hardware change. It would still be a software change.

 

 

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Actually does not matter at all.

Of course it does. If it's a hardware issue then it's the responsibility of the hardware department to fix.

If it's a software issue then it's up to the software department.

It's just to help illustrate that this is in fact a software change. It being a software change does not mean it is okay, but it does mean software was changed and not hardware.

 

Here is a helpful tip for future conversations: We can't download hardware over the Internet, yet. If something was downloaded over the Internet, then it was purely software, not hardware.

 

 

Something being a software change does not mean it automatically is okay and should not be scrutinized though.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Is Microsoft not allowed to lock down my RAM and CPU unless I pay the appropriate license fee?

They have been doing it for years and nobody seems to have been batting an eye.

Because that is the software you buy at the time.  If your point had merit you would be arguing that MS came in after the fact and removed the ability for people to use all their RAM or HDD. 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

 

Why not?

I physically own a 4K HDR TV. Is Netflix not allowed to limit the amount of pixels and colors my TV displays while using their service? They are not letting me use the full capabilities of my TV despite owning it, and they are imposing this limit purely in software.

Again it is nowhere near the same thing. Netflix is a service, you pay for a shit one or you pay for a good one or you don't pay and don't use it.     You just can't compare a streaming service to a tangible product, they simply occupy two very different categories of consumer goods.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The method of making the change is not on trial here, the act of making that change is.

The method of making a change and what the change actually was is highly relevant to the discussion because different agreements and laws applies to different software and hardware.

 

Certain laws and licenses only applies to software, and others only applies to hardware. 

 

 

I am also mostly arguing semantics here. This was purely a software change. Again, just because it was a software change does not mean it is automatically immune to scrutiny. But in order to have a serious debate both sides must use an agreed upon language where words have the same meanings. Without using agreed upon terms no serious debate is possible.

 

Can we agree that changing a variable inside a program is a software change? Yes or no?

Please remember that change is defined by the dictionary as altering something, and hardware is defined as a physical component such as a chassi, battery or processor.

 

 

All I want is for you and leadeter to say that this change was a software change. It was not a hardware change. The usability of the hardware was impaired because of the software change, but what happened was at the end of the day that some piece of software was altered, not the physical battery.

 

 

As a result, the laws and regulations that applies are the same as in other cases of software being altered.

If we are in agreement regarding this then we can discuss what the laws says about these types of software modifications and if they are allowed or not. Or if they need to be changed to allow/prevent these types of things from happening.

 

 

I think that this (software limited hardware) will just become more and more common as time goes on, but in order to have a proper debate about it people need to realize how these thing work on a more technical level.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again it is nowhere near the same thing. Netflix is a service, you pay for a shit one or you pay for a good one or you don't pay and don't use it.     You just can't compare a streaming service to a tangible product, they simply occupy two very different categories of consumer goods.

It is, because the catalyst for this entire debacle was that the owner of the car wanted to sign up to Tesla's service. Did you not read the tweet that was linked a few posts earlier?

 

Tesla said that if you want to use our service, we will not let you use the 90kWh capacity this car never paid to use. The owner of the car was free to keep using the 90kWh battery capacity if he wanted, but then Tesla would not let him join their service.

 

 

It is the exact same situation as with Netflix.

My TV physically has the components to display HDR content. I can display HDR content if I want through for example Youtube.

But if I want to use Netflix with HDR I have to pay them a special fee in order to do so.

They are holding the hardware capabilities of my TV ransom. If I want to use their service, I have to agree to their terms, which in this case is "pay more to get access to HDR" I am however free to not agree to their terms and keep using the HDR function, just like the Tesla owner was free to keep the 90kWh battery, but then he wouldn't be allowed to connect to Tesla's servers.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

All I want is for you and leadeter to say that this change was a software change.

But that is a moot point, it does not alter our position or the legal one presented here, it just conflates confusing terminology that does no justice to the situation.    Like wanderingfool who wants to call it a "configuration issue", it might technically be a configuration that can be changed, but the connotation is that the configuration was faulty and that is absolutely down right wrong.  The fact it can be changed by software is not the issue because what they set out to do and the fact they are doing it is the issue.   

 

Which is why I pointed out the oil line analogy, hacking is merely a software issue,  but because it has real world effects it no longer is treated as something minor and we don't argue that we must first all agree that it was only "software changes".   Same in this case,  Tesla might be enacting technical clause in their service agreement, but by doing what they did they violated not only ethical practice but also it looks like they violated a law or two in the process.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But that is a moot point, it does not alter our position or the legal one presented here

It is not a moot point because as I said earlier, we have different laws surrounding software and hardware.

It might have been an extremely important distinction if this had reached a court of law because all of a sudden the softare license agreement might have played a role. If this was a hardware change then that would not have played a role.

To an end user it might seem like a trivial difference because the outcome is the same. It doesn't matter if Tesla had physically swapped the battery out in the middle of the night, or just locked it through software, but from a legal point it might have been a huge difference.

 

And again, it might also matter if we want to prevent this from happening in the future. If laws are going to be written or altered then it matters what actually happened, not just what the effect was.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which is why I pointed out the oil line analogy, hacking is merely a software issue,  but because it has real world effects it no longer is treated as something minor and we don't argue that we must first all agree that it was only "software changes".   Same in this case,  Tesla might be enacting technical clause in their service agreement, but by doing what they did they violated not only ethical practice but also it looks like they violated a law or two in the process.

I have at no point in this entire thread said that if it is software related then it is a minor thing. I think a change being a software change or hardware change is irrelevant when we are talking about the impact said change can have. A software change can be devastating, and a hardware change can be trivial, or vice versa.

 

It being a software change does not automatically make it okay or minor.

Likewise, saying that it is a hardware change does not make it more or less serious.

 

But it being a software change absolutely does matter when talking about the legal aspects of it, especially if we want to discuss future scenarios and what we should do to allow or prevent it from happening.

 

 

Again, just so that I am 100% clear here. I am not saying "it was a software change so it is not a big deal".

All I am saying is that it was software that was changed, not hardware. No hardware was physically altered anytime during this entire thing. It was purely software that was changed back and forth. The battery was never physically touched.

 

Dismiss that as a trivial difference if you want, but that was my entire objection to what leadeater said earlier. He was adamant that this was a hardware change, not software. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is, because the catalyst for this entire debacle was that the owner of the car wanted to sign up to Tesla's service. Did you not read the tweet that was linked a few posts earlier?

Yes, and when you sign up for netflix you know what movies you are getting and what streaming quality you are getting, What netflix does has no effect on your hardware or your ability to use it. 

 

A better analogy would be Sony releasing a smart tv update that gimps resolution on secondhand tv's unless you pay a service fee to have it reinstated.

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Tesla said that if you want to use our service, we will not let you use the 90kWh capacity this car never paid to use. The owner of the car was free to keep using the 90kWh battery capacity if he wanted, but then Tesla would not let him join their service.

According to the tweets and the article tesla did not tell him that at all, they said they found a problem and would push a fix, the customer did not know the fix was a reduction in battery capacity.  From the tweet:

 

Quote

This guy bought a car, & years later Tesla reaches in remotely with no warning and literally cuts his usable range by a third! (I confirmed story w/logs)

From the article:

 

Quote

 

After the Tesla visit, he received a call from the automaker telling him that they found an error in his vehicle configuration and that they would push a “fix” to his car.

The “fix” reverted his configuration to a Model S 60 and locked about 80 miles of range from his battery pack. The customer tried to explain the situation to Tesla and have them reenable the capability, which he paid for since he bought the car as a Model S 90, but Tesla told him that he had to pay $4,500 to unlock the capability:

 

 

As you can see the poor man bought a car with 90Kw batteries, tesla "pushed a fix" that they did not explain was a reduction in capacity.  Then he asked for them to change it and they tried to sting him $4500.   That is extortion, not a software issue.

 

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

It is the exact same situation as with Netflix.

My TV physically has the components to display HDR content. I can display HDR content if I want through for example Youtube.

But if I want to use Netflix with HDR I have to pay them a special fee in order to do so.

They are holding the hardware capabilities of my TV ransom. If I want to use their service, I have to agree to their terms, which in this case is "pay more to get access to HDR" I am however free to not agree to their terms and keep using the HDR function, just like the Tesla owner was free to keep the 90kWh battery, but then he wouldn't be allowed to connect to Tesla's servers.

I don't see netflix doing anything like tesla at all, they have never caused any of your hardware to stop working the way it did when you bought it.   They just don't push a HDR stream, that doesn't mean you can't view HDR content on your tv.  Fuck,  you may as well be complaining that Netflix are exactly like Tesla because you can't watch disney on your tv which is more than capable of presenting a disney movie.

 

Just because you have a HDR tv doesn't mean Netflix has to stream HDR content.   And this has absolutely nothing to do with a company hamstringing a product they don't own and have no legal right to change.

 

 

[Spotty]

21 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The usable battery capacity was changed, as a result of the softare being changed.

This is purely a software change. The effects of a software change might alter physical things, but it is still a software change. The update didn't alter the hardware in any way. The battery did not physically change from being able to hold 90kWh to only being able to hold 60kWh.

Is the vehicle owner freely able to install different software or operating system on the vehicle to manage the battery?

 

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

It is, because the catalyst for this entire debacle was that the owner of the car wanted to sign up to Tesla's service. Did you not read the tweet that was linked a few posts earlier?

 

Tesla said that if you want to use our service, we will not let you use the 90kWh capacity this car never paid to use. The owner of the car was free to keep using the 90kWh battery capacity if he wanted, but then Tesla would not let him join their service.

Not quite. It was during the service to upgrade the computer to allow 4G connectivity that Tesla discovered that they made a mistake during the previous battery replacement. Whether the battery is limited to 60kWh or unlimited to 90kWh does not affect the ability to connect to the service. This has nothing to do with connecting to the Tesla service and, as far as we know, Tesla did not make any statement saying that if the owner wants to connect to the service it requires reconfiguring the battery.

If the vehicle is configured in a way that Tesla does not approve of they would potentially be within their right to deny that vehicle access to their network. It's their network and they are able to dictate who does and does not have access to it. They could have contacted the owner regarding the error and stated that access to the network will not be available unless the car is reconfigured to meet Tesla's requirements. However, instead of doing that Tesla chose to modify the car without the owners permission.

[mr moose]

Just now, LAwLz said:

It is not a moot point because as I said earlier, we have different laws surrounding software and hardware.

Citation? 

Just now, LAwLz said:

It might have been an extremely important distinction if this had reached a court of law because all of a sudden the softare license agreement might have played a role. If this was a hardware change then that would not have played a role.

To an end user it might seem like a trivial difference because the outcome is the same. It doesn't matter if Tesla had physically swapped the battery out in the middle of the night, or just locked it through software, but from a legal point it might have been a huge difference.

So your whole argument is because it hasn't gone through the courts yet there is a difference and that difference is important?  

 

NO,  the poor bloke had his car vandalized (fortunately tesla realized the shit they were in and changed it right away), and now there are people who think he deserves it because of technicalities in some perception of how laws are written.

 

 

[LargeMan]

tisla

The fact that the company can just lock the car down is a pretty stupid idea. You bought it, why are they allowed to fiddle with it even after that? I guess there are some advantages, but it seems strange that they can disable it.