• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tesla turns off autopilot unless you pay extra.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
senseamp said:
Open and shut case. Tesla presented this car as having those features, and then pulled a bait and switch and disabled them. Tesla should stop damaging its own brand reputation and restore the functionality that dealer and in turn customer both paid for in good faith.
Click to expand...
No the Auctioneer presenjted the car as it was......
I personally have njever had any issues with Tesla......but carry on!!
 
senseamp said:
BTW, if Tesla sold the car "AS-IS" at auction, as far as I am concerned, all the features that were on it at the time of sale need to be left on the car. Otherwise it's not "AS-IS" anymore. If dealer went to auction, sat in the car, and the system showed as enabled, unless there was a disclaimer that Autopilot will be turned off, then Tesla presented the car as having Autopilot, no take-backs.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. That car was purchased "as is", Tesla doesn't get to crank the price after the sale.
 
herm0016 said:
The features bought with the car and on the window sticker/door sticker/attached to the vin should stay with the car forever. I cant think of anything that looses features or capacity when you sell it. if they are going to do this, every car should be a user license and a lease and tesla should hold the titles.

what's to stop them from cutting the battery capacity down to the lowest level every time a car sells, and then make you pay for the upgrade again?


its akin to extortion. you can't have the thing you already bought unless you pay us more.

also, as to sources: Tesla fan clubs are not exactly without bias.
Click to expand...


Timeshares do this crap. Not really the model of business ethics. I really hate the trend towards treating cars like apps on a phone.
 
rstrohkirch said:
If it was a traditional buy back then essentially no one paid for the feature as the original buyer would have been given a full reimbursement for the vehicle. It's only shady on Tesla's part if they did not communicate to anyone at the auction that the car was missing feature. Which may have been the case.
Click to expand...
It's illegal if Tesla sold a feature, then revoked it later. Note there is some wiggle room here for an honest miscommunication or mistake, but they'd have to rectify it as they apparently did.
When I say shady, I'm arguing that something that is legal can still be onerous.

I don't quite get your point though. Are you suggesting that when Tesla bought the car back, it compensated the original owner for the AP+FSD software? I didn't say fully compensate, but I don't think anybody believes the original owner recouped any of his $8k when he sold the car back. In other words, he was compensated for the car in its current condition. Not car + some fictional value of AP+FSD, which is a ludicrous assertion you appear to have made?
 
It depends on what a "buy back" means. Did the owner decide he didn't want it before the 7 day or whatever cool down period and gave it back to Tesla? Was it a lemon that Tesla had to buy back? Was it just a trade in? If it was a trade in then yes it 100% should have all the features it was originally bought with. The other two options I can understand changing things but even if those software options aren't listed anymore you need to actually remove the software before it goes up for sale so there is no confusion.

What about all the SR model 3s out there? When those get traded in can tesla just software update them and sell them as SR+s and charge more for the used car? Anybody can upgrade one to an SR+ if they want to pay to do it.
 
If the reports on this story are accurate, what Tesla did was illegal. By all accounts, Tesla sold the car to the dealer, with the feature listed and working, and only after it was no longer their property was the feature deactivated, after having received the benefit of the sale @price due to this feature.

It is possible the dealer is lying, but if not, if Tesla did not disclose the feature was no longer available, only specific wording to that extent in the sales contract could allow legal removal after the sale.

Auction is irrelevant, as is the remote software means of removal.
 
Maybe Tesla AP isn't something worth dying for.
https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...in-tesla-crash-had-complained-about-autopilot

85
 
Yeah, I won’t be letting a car drive for me anytime soon. It’s totally insane that people put their lives in the hands of a dumb machine, especially after seeing unexpected and undesired behavior from it. At least if I crash and die it’s my own damn fault, not a shitty company irresponsibly releasing an experimental feature designed to gather machine learning data at the customer’s expense.
 
repoman0 said:
Yeah, I won’t be letting a car drive for me anytime soon. It’s totally insane that people put their lives in the hands of a dumb machine, especially after seeing unexpected and undesired behavior from it. At least if I crash and die it’s my own damn fault, not a shitty company...
Click to expand...

There's a psychological issue there - what if you were, say, 2 or 5 times safer with autopilot - people still prefer to drive themselves in many cases.
 
feralkid said:
Maybe Tesla AP isn't something worth dying for.
https://www.usnews.com/news/busines...in-tesla-crash-had-complained-about-autopilot
Click to expand...
AutoPilot is at the very least misnamed, but Tesla will get away with victim-blaming in this case. Not only was dude keenly aware that AP was unreliable at this part of the highway, the engineer, and father of two young children, was busy playing a mobile game in the minutes leading up to the crash. It's incredible that the whole front end of the car was shorn off by the collision.
 
Autopilot might be safer for someone drowsy and about to doze off. Safer, not safe, mind you. Still a chance you get run over, but at least it's better than being in a moving vehicle with your eyes closed and senses totally not working at all until it is too late.
 
Craig234 said:
There's a psychological issue there - what if you were, say, 2 or 5 times safer with autopilot - people still prefer to drive themselves in many cases.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you can only quantify “safety” in terms of statistical averages. To me it seems like the average/median driver is distracted the majority of the time, playing with a phone or not paying attention in some way .. autopilot will probably be a safer bet in that case even if it kills occasionally. I prefer to take a trip in the car a little more seriously because I enjoy actually controlling my vehicles .. proper driving technique, manual transmissions, two hands on the wheel and no cell phones. I trust myself every time even if statistics say a computer is better.

edit: and I work in GNC and machine learning so I know it’s mostly bs 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top