Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Richard230]

I heard a news report on the radio today that said that when a Tesla car is sold, the company would delete any extra-cost software updates that the original owner paid for as soon as they discovered the the car was sold and had a new owner.  If that is true, I see lawsuits in the future.

[motorrad36]

I have two thoughts, and they are conflicting I think. First, its dumb as heck for tesla to delete a feature post sale. I want to believe that lawsuits would win out in the long run. Unless Elon can make a very sound argument for not allowing it, I think a judge would rule in the secondhand customers favor. This would force tesla to change how they offer these updates; it would have to be cheaper, but then the car will be tied to an "account" that constantly has to be checked against the database to ensure the paid features are turned on. this leads to all sorts of issues, like if you pay for self driving does that feature follow you to the next tesla? if that is the case my previous thought was wrong and it will go up to $10k for "lifetime self driving"? you'd create customers for life that way.

on the flip side, the secondhand market could be stronger actually because this might devalue used teslas more, making them cheaper to buy (hopefully).

[TheRan]

It makes sense to me, if the stuff is tied to an account AND the features are transferable to a new vehicle or the cost is refundable. In that way it would be akin to an app purchased on a phone. That said I don't think it should be that way, and as far as I know most software extras on bikes are tied to the particular bike and that's how it should be.

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

Ref: https://jalopnik.com/tesla-remotely-removes-autopilot-features-from-customer-1841472617

I'm in the software business and licensing is an issue, but firmware upgrades should have legal protection or denial in some form, to inform seller and buyer. It appears that the Tesla secondhand market is not adequately informed, in either case.

Personally, I believe the licenses should be tied to the vehicle, period. Tesla does not need to be re-paid for software every time a vehicle changes hands. That creates perverse incentives.

[Crissa]

If the software is tied to a user account, why would it travel with the car?

When you buy a used phone, you don't get the apps that were on it.

-Crissa

[togo]

My understanding is that when vehicles are sold, private party, that the software features remain intact, but that if a car is traded in to Tesla, Tesla CPO will delete free transferrable lifetime supercharging (early) and then sell it without.  And of course, for vehicles with nontransferable lifetime supercharging (later), they are in their rights to take it away on transfer.  Apparently it was observed last year that cars that all used teslas in the CPO were suddenly missing the free lifetime supercharging function the early ones were sold with.  I guess they could do the same with FSD, maybe even EAP and AP.

Acronyms:

FSD= full self driving, i.e. EAP plus auto lane-change and navigate-on-autopilot and future autonomy

EAP= enhanced autopilot, i.e. AP plus the self-parking function

AP= basic autopilot, traffic aware cruise and auto-steering

[DonTom]

Then way I see it, when it's fully paid for in advance,  Tesla cannot remove it. I think they will lose that one.

There is communications that I must pay $12.00 per month for on my Tesla or many of the features go away, such as the satellite view on the GPS display and many of the fancy radio features, including using the web from the display. That gets charged monthly  to my Tesla account that links to a credit card. I see that as being a lot different than something that is fully paid for in advance.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[Crissa]

We can't know if the owner took the features with them or not from that information.

Not all of those features mentioned are software-only.

-Crissa

[TheRan]

Before anyone can say definitively that Tesla would lose in court we need to answer two questions that I posed earlier, are the paid software features transferable and/or is the cost refundable?

If not, and there's no mention of this in the EULA then the seller could argue that Tesla has removed value from a product which they're trying to sell. For the buyer I would think it would be a tougher fight because Tesla could try and argue that they haven't paid the extra cost to have those features, that the money should instead go to the seller.

[DonTom]

Before anyone can say definitively that Tesla would lose in court we need to answer two questions that I posed earlier, are the paid software features transferable and/or is the cost refundable?

If not, and there's no mention of this in the EULA then the seller could argue that Tesla has removed value from a product which they're trying to sell. For the buyer I would think it would be a tougher fight because Tesla could try and argue that they haven't paid the extra cost to have those features, that the money should instead go to the seller.

That's a good point. Perhaps it is in writing somewhere as that being part of the terms to accept the software when purchased. There are things here we do not know.

-Don-  Auburn, CA

[ESokoloff]

Update......
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/21136699/tesla-autopilot-used-model-s-owner-restored-assistance-features