Overclock.net banner

[ExtremeTech] Tesla claims it can control how customers use its self-driving car

5K views 95 replies 47 participants last post by  ladcrooks 
#1 ·
Quote:
The company also included some details on how customers who purchase self-driving vehicles are allowed to use their cars. The company's claims will almost certainly be tested in court, given how Tesla is attempting to execute a fairly massive power grab.
Quote:
So. According to Tesla, buying a Model S means you are agreeing to only use the vehicle's self-driving capabilities to generate revenue if you use Tesla's own baked-in system.
Quote:
Whether this is legal is an interesting question. As Slate notes, it's the latest salvo fired in a decades-long trend to dilute the very concept of ownership and transform physical products into "licensed" versions that are treated more like software. So how can Tesla know what you're doing with your vehicle? That's easy - it tracks the car extensively, both to provide software updates and monitor driver behavior. Last year, Tesla raised eyebrows by sending waves of emails asking certain customers not to spend so much time recharging at Superchargers. In a well-discussed spat with the New York Times, Musk revealed Tesla had exact records of where the tested vehicle had stopped, started, and how much it had been driven (and at what speeds and operating temperatures).
Source.

If you read Tesla's privacy policy you get the distinct notion that it manages to be quite a bit more creepy and invasive than Windows 10's. This isn't going in the right direction at all. Imagine all IoT devices doing the same thing. IoT kettle that only allows you to make tea for yourself and family. Throwing a party with friends or in a commercial setting and it will detect it and demand a share.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Source.

If you read Tesla's privacy policy you get the distinct notion that it manages to be quite a bit more creepy and invasive than Windows 10's. This isn't going in the right direction at all. Imagine all IoT devices doing the same thing. IoT kettle that only allows you to make tea for yourself and family. Throwing a party with friends or in a commercial setting and it will detect it and demand a share.
I would only be worried when that kettle decides it wants to burn your house down, or when that party venue starts playing with the lights when it isn't disco time.
 
#4 ·
Simple, don't buy a Tesla.

Don't reward companies who don't know what the meaning of buying is.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: iAmCodeMonkey
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdrifter View Post

When it gets popular enough, someone will hack it and make a Custom Firmware (or equivalent for cars) to disable all these restrictions.
I can see it now.

"Model S loaded with custom firmware couldn't ping back to Tesla; entire vehicle bricked for breaching ToS". Could a vehicle manufacturer render an entire $100k+ vehicle useless if the customer wanted to actually own their massive investment? Because custom firmware in these cars could open a world of possibilities; enhanced performance, range increases, features out the eyeballs. Probably software that outperformes Tesla's proprietary solution.

"Last year, Tesla raised eyebrows by sending waves of emails asking certain customers not to spend so much time recharging at Superchargers."

Tesla told it's customers to not use the dedicated, free charging stations that were built and maintained SPECIFICALLY to make these vehicles more realistically usable. It's like they are telling drivers to NOT enjoy using their product. Model 3 owners may have to pay a fee to use the SuperChargers. Which makes sense; only if ALL models are required to pay a subscription. I'm on a rant, I apologize. I want to like Tesla so much.

But it's k. We're going to Mars. Wonder what terms of service occupants will have to agree to then.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellis142 View Post

Tesla told it's customers to not use the dedicated, free charging stations that were built and maintained SPECIFICALLY to make these vehicles more realistically usable.
I wish I could fine that specific news, but it's needed to state, that such mails were targeted to users, who were occupying SuperChargers instead of using their home solution - basically attempt to make SC less occupied by users who drove to SC to get a free, high-speed charge, because they were too lazy to charge at home, at the expense of users who were actually driving far away, and needed that charge.

As for Model 3 - there are indications that those users can either pay for package for access to SC, or use some sort of "credits", which they buy at home, and they get some entitled capacity from SC. For me, that's briliant idea - those who don't intend to use Model 3 for long distance, don't need permanent SC access, and in need they just buy "credits" in case they do some (un)expected long trip.
thumb.gif


Edit: SC are built to be used for long distance trips. For everything else we have Destination Charging and charging at home.
And INB4 "gas stations" - no, SC are not so spreaded as gas stations, so any comparison with them is sort of unrealistic.
 
#9 ·
Tesla thinking it can dictate terms after point of sale has just sealed the fate of this company. This is not a digital video game license or a copy of an OS: this is a car. A half ton physical item that is MINE.

Assuming users are barred from using their purchased cars in any way the see fit, this could develop into some very nasty antitrust lawsuits.
 
#12 ·
There is a problem with self driving vehicles. Not everyone lives right near cities, or will have the ability to afford such a car. Plus, good luck getting farmers on that. A lot of individuals out here use trucks for off roading, farm work, hunting, etc. I highly doubt self driving vehicles can handle such tasks.

I like the idea of electrical vehicles, but where the heck is the trucks or SUVs that are electric?
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

All you'd need to do is bring up the fact that those same destruction prone humans are the ones making self driving cars. For legislators to believe that self driving cars are somehow infallible is a mistake.
Nothing is infallible, but it's hard to even imagine a scenario where self-driving cars don't eventually outdo human drivers by enormous margins in virtually all areas. When that happens, and it will, many are going to consider manually operated vehicles to be unnecessary and risky...and from a pure functionality outlook, they'll probably be right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithanul View Post

A lot of individuals out here use trucks for off roading, farm work, hunting, etc. I highly doubt self driving vehicles can handle such tasks.
Even if manually operated vehicles are categorically banned from public roads, none of that would have an impact on what people do on their own property, not directly anyway.
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

Nothing is infallible
You are correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithanul View Post

There is a problem with self driving vehicles. Not everyone lives right near cities, or will have the ability to afford such a car. Plus, good luck getting farmers on that. A lot of individuals out here use trucks for off roading, farm work, hunting, etc. I highly doubt self driving vehicles can handle such tasks.

I like the idea of electrical vehicles, but where the heck is the trucks or SUVs that are electric?
There are self driving semis, tractors, etc, but even those are on diesel/biodiesel/ethanol mixes.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post

Even if manually operated vehicles are categorically banned from public roads, none of that would have an impact on what people do on their own property, not directly anyway.
You must not live near farm land. Farmers use public roads to move their equipment from field to field. They use their trucks to move hay, farm animals, etc. from area to area by public roads. Plus, on hunting. I drive a hour to one of my relative's large properties to go hunt. So do pray tell how then how could I avoid public roads.

I don't mind self driving vehicles (I actually think they are great especially for elderly people who can no longer drive themselves), but I highly doubt the government will straight out ban non self driving vehicles in our life time.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: lombardsoup
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post

Simple, don't buy a Tesla.

Don't reward companies who don't know what the meaning of buying is.
Here's the problem... there are no competitors yet.
frown.gif
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: iAmCodeMonkey
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithanul View Post

You must not live near farm land. Farmers use public roads to move their equipment from field to field. They use their trucks to move hay, farm animals, etc. from area to area by public roads. Plus, on hunting. I drive a hour to one of my relative's large properties to go hunt. So do pray tell how then how could I avoid public roads.

I don't mind self driving vehicles (I actually think they are great especially for elderly people who can no longer drive themselves), but I highly doubt the government will straight out ban non self driving vehicles in our life time.
And its not merely farming. Imagine what that would do the mining industry, constructions firms, etc.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithanul View Post

You must not live near farm land. Farmers use public roads to move their equipment from field to field. They use their trucks to move hay, farm animals, etc. from area to area by public roads. Plus, on hunting. I drive a hour to one of my relative's large properties to go hunt. So do pray tell how then how could I avoid public roads.
What type of non legal offroad vehicle are you driving for an hour on pubic roads? Get a trailer if anything...
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloCamo View Post

What type of non legal offroad vehicle are you driving for an hour on pubic roads? Get a trailer if anything...
This is commonplace in major US agriculture states. Often times with the way farm zoning (where you're allowed to have farmland) is laid out, the only way to get to the next property is via public roads.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

This is commonplace in major US agriculture states. Often times with the way farm zoning (where you're allowed to have farmland) is laid out, the only way to get to the next property is via public roads.
Yup.

There are a lot of exemptions for certain types of vehicles to use public road ways.

The FMVSS really only applies to certain commercial and passenger vehicles, as do most federal and state safety and emissions laws.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

This is commonplace in major US agriculture states. Often times with the way farm zoning (where you're allowed to have farmland) is laid out, the only way to get to the next property is via public roads.
Agriculture is one thing (Ive lived literally next to the Amish at one point in PA) - but he said he drives an hour on public roads for hunting.
 
#22 ·
I would also guess they don't want people using the superchargers too frequently as it can probably put premature wear on the batteries.

The amount of engineering and data required for self driving vehicles is absolutely tremendous, so it doesn't surprise me that they are using existing vehicles on the road to collect data and improve the system. It is the first of its kinda to be put into the public domain, and it will require many more years of refinement.

I'm not sure i fully understand from what i've read how Tesla wants to own your car and control it/prevent users from using it for their financial gain. I also got the impression of them targeting UBER and Lift but seriously its got to be a 0.000001% of people who drive for those companies that use Tesla's and the autopilot feature. And if a case just so happened to go through, i don't see how they could get any sort of traction with it. And Tesla "bricking" owner's cars? I just see lots of tin foil hats going on here..
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyMcFlych View Post

The politicians won't need to make laws outlawing manual vehicles, the economics of insurance will do it eventually. Once self driving vehicles become commonplace and they have reached the point where they're like 99% safe compared to human drivers. Once that happens as more and more people make the switch, those people will be unwilling to pay the skyhigh insurance rates that we currently have just to pay for the accidents that are being caused by the increasingly rare human drivers. Those human drivers will have to shoulder the entire cost of their insurance (the cost of the accidents they cause), and as the pool of human drivers shrinks the cost of their insurance will increase until it reaches levels that are increasingly un-affordable.
Um, what? Self driving cars have their own set of insurance (purchase is mandated in several states) for obvious reasons.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

Um, what? Self driving cars have their own set of insurance (purchase is mandated in several states) for obvious reasons.
Insurance costs are a factor of how much damage is caused by drivers. Here are some completely made up numbers...

Say the current rate of accidents causes a billion dollars worth of damage that insurance firms pay out. They then turn around and charge drivers a billion dollars + profits for insurance. That insurance costs is spread over the entire pool of drivers, with drivers who never get into accidents paying into the system but never getting anything out. Each driver might pay 5 to 10 thousand dollars a year in car insurance.

As people make the switch from manual driving to autonomous driving their chances of causing an accident will drop by huge margins, and they will expect to see their insurance costs drop in turn. It might only cost them 1000 dollars a year (or a hundred dollars or 1 dollar) to insure their autonomous vehicle. They will expect to pay into the insurance pool that covers autonomous driving cars only, and not be lumped in with human drivers who cause all the accidents.

As more people switch to autonomous driving the pool of human drivers will shrink, and while the number of accidents (and costs to the insurance industry) will also shrink, they won't shrink at the same rate. Those people who drive themselves will have to shoulder ever increasing amounts of their own risk as more and more people are taken out of the pool of drivers to insure. This will continue until the pool is so small that the cost to insure is prohibitive.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top