1324
Unpatchable AMD Chip Flaw Unlocks Paid Tesla Feature Upgrades
(www.tomshardware.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2023
1324 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
58144 readers
3995 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you pay to add a feature to a product that was previously not available, sure, that makes sense. But in this case, at the point of the transaction, and they hand over the keys, the ownership of the product is now 100% transferred to the customer. They should and can do whatever they want with their property. A manufacturer equipping a feature because it's cheaper is frankly not the customer's problem.
Imagine buying a house but you only get access to certain rooms. They set the price, the customer just pays for it. If they want to cover the cost of adding the heated seats feature, then add it to the starting price.
A bit off topic but that’s kind of how condos work btw. You don’t actually own the apartment or townhouse, you just own shares in a corporation that gives you the right to live in that space, with some severe restrictions.
Often you don’t have the right to mow your own lawn, you can’t keep certain things on your balcony, you can’t have a dog over a certain size, etc. It’s kind of nuts tbh. They give you the illusion of owning the space, but it’s a very restrictive form of ownership.
The automotive equivalent of that would be a lease rather than a purchase though, as I see it.
Well no, a lease is literally a lease. People do lease houses too you know. When people “buy” a condo, that’s not a lease.
The point I’m making here is that the housing analogy doesn’t work (“Imagine buying a house and not being allowed to X”) because people literally “buy” houses and are not allowed to do basic things that you’d assume come with house ownership.
I’m not defending that this is ok. For me buying a condo would be as ridiculous as buying a DRMed Tesla.
See my original edit which was before this reply, and my follow up to another person on the same post replying like you.
I'm not objecting to unlocking heated seats. I do object and consider something like FSD entirely different though.
Your original reply stated that "including heated seats and making you pay once to access it is fair game" is what prompted my reply. Users shouldn't be paying for it if it comes with the product, disabled or not.
I have no qualms about subscriptions for FSD due to continuing developments and improvements, and the fact that it requires a service running AI/ML models to operate. However the drastic subscription cost changes over 3 years raises an eyebrow. From $5000 in 2019 to $15000 in 2022 is quite a drastic change. They certainly have the right to price how they want, but definitely an insane pricing model.
Especially when FSD is still garbage. Seems to me like they just wanted to trigger FOMO.
If your problem with my statement is that Tesla shouldn't even be allowed to charge them for it in the first place then we'll have to disagree. They can sell whatever product they want with features locked away. If people don't want to buy a SR because it doesn't have heated seats without a fee then don't buy it.
Trying to make heated seats a subscription is where I'd draw the line and say regulators should step in.
And again, no qualms with people jailbreaking heated seats
I see where you're coming from. And I also agree with the subscription heated seats.
I think we might actually be advocating for the same thing lol. I was making the argument that manufacturers should have a one-time price for things that are packaged along with the product (with the exception of features like FSD that requires a continuing service to operate and evolve), but jailbreaking static features like heated seats is fair game.
However, your post got me thinking... If it is reasonable for FSD to be a subscription model, how are FSD updates different than, let's say, your phone having updates and security patches? We don't currently pay for new versions of iOS or Android. Granted the complexity and stake of FSD is greater than a phone, it is similar fundamentally
We don't pay for phone updates, but there is software out there that's a buy a version and get all updates to that version, but not a new version.
E.g buy 5.0, get 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.3 etc but not 6.0
Usually that kinda software stays on a version for years.
My Jetbrains IDE is a subscription fee like that. Yearly fee gets you all major version updates, but you keep it as is if you stop paying.
Phone updates don't come for the life of the ~~car~~ phone either.
Would you pay a yearly fee to continue getting updates for your now no longer being updated but perfectly fine otherwise phone? I would.
Good question. At that point I'd explore replacing the OS altogether with GapheneOS or LineageOS.
When it comes to cars though, I don't find FSD an appealing enough value to continue paying (or even begin to pay in the first place). But to your point, that doesn't mean Tesla shouldn't price it how they want and people to buy it if they wish.