Telsa remotely disables Auto-Pilot on used car it sold at its own auction ...

[Koen]

Ridiculous, there's plenty of choice ! See this :

[sokoloff]

That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.

If anyone's giving them away, I'd love to have a 997 Turbo [or even a 991 Turbo], 458, or 488.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

It is the freedom to move which people like and want.

Hear hear!

[tooki]

I guess it escaped your notice that Teslas are some of the very fastest street-legal cars in existence (as in acceleration, not maximum speed)?

Model 3 performance can do 0-60 mph (0-95.5 kmh) in <3 seconds (3.2 advertised), top speed 162 mph (261 km/h).
Long range AWD 0-60 mph in 3.9s, top speed 233 kmh.
Standard Range Plus (which is the cheapest) 0-60 mph in 5.3s, top speed 225kmh
They were a bit less quick a year ago, but since then there were 2 software updates each increasing performance a bit.

That's all true (and awesome), but I wasn't asking what the specs were.

[bdunham7]

I'm a bit late, but I wanted to add that the original controversy over the deletion of the Auto-Pilot would be an interesting discussion--if we actually had all the facts.  The original window sticker has been purportedly been shown as evidence of what the car had when originally sold and Tesla's actions have been compared to stealing wheels.  However...

First, the car was apparently originally sold with those options--this appears to be undisputed whether or not you believe that whatever version of the sticker you are looking at is genuine.  The one I saw appeared to have correct pricing for the options at the time.  The car then developed several defects that were not remedied and the owner demanded action under the California Song-Beverly act (lemon law).  Tesla took the car back and issued either a replacement or a refund--I believe it was a replacement, but I'm not sure.  At this point the car belongs to Tesla and they are free to remove options, whether it be AutoPilot or fancy wheels, before selling it or disposing of it how they see fit.

The car was then sold to an independent dealer at a wholesale auction, who then resold it to a customer.  Apparently the Autopilot functioned at the time of the wholesale transaction but stopped working shortly thereafter.  Here is where we run short of facts.  The sole issue as I see it would be what representations were made to the dealer by Tesla at the time of that sale.  If, as I suspect, essentially no representations were made but the dealer had the opportunity to inspect the car before bidding and determined that the car did have AutoPilot, then you have some interesting legal arguments.  On the other hand, if it was made clear by the seller that the car either did or didn't include AP, then the case is pretty simple.   It would be nice if the buyer(s) in this case would share this information instead of trying to whip up public outrage over what may be a weak or nonexistent case.

My takeaway from this is that Tesla may be ahead in technology, but they are behind the curve in other areas.  The whole CPO/used/lemon-law issue has to be as carefully managed as any other aspect of the business and there's plenty of other indications that they lack the capacity to do this well.

[tooki]

As I understood it, Tesla represented it at auction as possessing those options, and the dealer bought it on the basis of it including them, and then sold it to the consumer on the same basis. Assuming that's accurate, Tesla doesn't have a legal foot to stand on, I suspect.

You're totally right that Tesla can do whatever they want with it while it's under their ownership, but if they themselves sell it with the claim that it includes the options, then removing them after the sale is, plain and simply, wrong.

[bdunham7]

As I understood it, Tesla represented it at auction as possessing those options,

I'm sure that is what the dealer wants people to assume, but I've seen no evidence of that so far.  I would think if they had that evidence, they'd be showing it.

[donotdespisethesnake]

As I understood it, Tesla represented it at auction as possessing those options, and the dealer bought it on the basis of it including them,

I think neither the dealer nor second customer have claimed that. What the dealer claimed is that Autopilot was "working" when he took possession, but stopped working before final delivery to customer. The dealer and customer both observed AP was NOT working, but the dealer managed to persuade him it was "just a glitch" (yeah right) despite the dealer knowing that Tesla can and do withdraw features after sale.

The problem is compounded by the habit of Tesla providing free trials of AP which are supposed to last for a month, then if you don't purchase the feature disappears. Another issue is Tesla hate dealers, and won't let them login and check what options the car has, only a registered end user can do that.

What we don't have is proof of what Tesla actually sold at auction to the dealer. Normally stuff at auction is sold "as seen", but how do you tell if AP should be there or not, or is a limited free trial?

[Mr. Scram]

That's the problem in a nutshell isn't it? "Sold as seen" no longer holds value when matters can be changed after the fact.

[Mr. Scram]

Everybody is selling licenses these days. I don't see the link with ownership.

A license is again NOT ownership. You don't "own" a license. You're granted one, with contractual clauses. True ownership usually doesn't have any clause; once you own something, it's yours forever until you pass ownership to someone else. In that respect, a license is closer to renting than to ownership.

Is licensing a proper model for cars, and for hardware devices in general? Probably not. Is it legal? So far, I think so. It's just a contract. You accept it or you don't. If you buy a Tesla car with some parts that are licensed to you (which means you don't "own" those parts), you are warned when you sign. Of course if those licensed parts are *essential* to the use of the bought item, then you could reasonably sue if you stop being licensed for any reason. But if those parts are "accessories", then I don't think you'd really have any ground to sue. You just accept it when you sign. And in the case of resold used cars, it's the responsibility of the reseller to warn you that some licensed parts are or are not transferable. So for the OP's case, there is likely ground to sue - probably for wrong description of the good.

Of course it's a landmine.

Note that we're mainly talking about (embedded) software here, but with electric cars, for the time being, you will NEVER be sure you can keep using the car for as long as you keep maintaining it. Batteries are the first culprit. You're totally tied to the vendor. When you batteries die, if the vendor doesn't exist anymore, you're basically screwed, all the more that there is no standard that I know of so far, so you can't just replace them with equivalent parts. If electric vehicles are getting more pervasive, this is likely to change - we'll probably start seeing standards and laws to protect the consumers - but for now, you definitely never really OWN an electric car in the true sense. You just own the hardware of the car (usually except the batteries), and nothing much else. So whether this is for the batteries or for software licensing reasons, the car can just eventually become a pile of dead shit - even if it's in perfect condition.

Everybody selling licences and not seeing the link with ownership is exactly the issue. You pay as if you'd buy it but without actually buying it.

[james_s]

That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.

If anyone's giving them away, I'd love to have a 997 Turbo [or even a 991 Turbo], 458, or 488.

True, I wouldn't turn it down, but I'd take an aircooled 911 over any of those.

[Mr. Scram]

I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.

That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.

Damn those laws of physics and our advancing understanding of them leading to similar solutions for the same problems and subsequent legal requirements.

[james_s]

I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.

That said, I struggle to think of any car made in the last 15 years that I would want if it were offered to me for free. The last 10 years especially, they seem to be in a race to design the most hideously ugly thing possible while also making it boring to drive. Modern cars just have no soul, they're all designed according to the same algorithms and they're all the same.

Damn those laws of physics and our advancing understanding of them leading to similar solutions for the same problems and subsequent legal requirements.

Bullshit.

Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover is sort of a car, sort of a station wagon, sort of an SUV, it does none of these things well but it's popular with the average consumer because no matter what they are looking for it looks vaguely like that. Everyone else just copies what is selling best and soon you can hardly buy anything else. While I would love to roll back a lot of the regulations (hey I can buy a motorcycle so why can't I buy a car without a zillion airbags?) it's absolutely possible to make a car that isn't yet another POS crossover within the current system. How about we start with bringing back actual shock mounted bumpers that protect the bodywork so a minor parking lot bump doesn't cost $3k to repair?

People like me who want something different are left out in the cold, gone are the days when manufactures made a bunch of unique stuff aiming for a hit, now they just take the safe route and make more of the same. It's exactly the same reason Hollywood is pumping out so many sequels, prequels and reboots, most of it is unimaginative garbage, but it sells so they make more and more of it, and it displaces more and more interesting stuff. You can't blame that on physics and government regulation, it's just an unfortunate result of capitalism.

[tooki]

Some regulations (like how bumpers must behave when colliding with pedestrians, or headlamp design) directly result in convergent evolution.

But another one is simply that developing a car platform costs several billion dollars. As such, lots of models are simply the same platform, skinned a bit differently depending on what marque it's selling under.

I agree that it's a bit of a shame that nobody is willing to take a chance on really unique designs, but given a) how much money is at stake, and b) how cooly the market has responded to the more creative recent models, can you blame them?

[nctnico]

Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover

If this where true then every manufacturer would just make one model. The reality is that all manufacturers make a broad range of cars and for some models even a sedan, station wagon and hatchback. And then there are also manufacturers (Volkswagen, PSA) who make cars under several brands which all aim at the same market segment. SUVs (I think it stands for 'Slow Use Vehicles' because everyone seems to drive them slow) are just a part of the range.

[Mr. Scram]

Bullshit.

Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover is sort of a car, sort of a station wagon, sort of an SUV, it does none of these things well but it's popular with the average consumer because no matter what they are looking for it looks vaguely like that. Everyone else just copies what is selling best and soon you can hardly buy anything else. While I would love to roll back a lot of the regulations (hey I can buy a motorcycle so why can't I buy a car without a zillion airbags?) it's absolutely possible to make a car that isn't yet another POS crossover within the current system. How about we start with bringing back actual shock mounted bumpers that protect the bodywork so a minor parking lot bump doesn't cost $3k to repair?

People like me who want something different are left out in the cold, gone are the days when manufactures made a bunch of unique stuff aiming for a hit, now they just take the safe route and make more of the same. It's exactly the same reason Hollywood is pumping out so many sequels, prequels and reboots, most of it is unimaginative garbage, but it sells so they make more and more of it, and it displaces more and more interesting stuff. You can't blame that on physics and government regulation, it's just an unfortunate result of capitalism.

If you can't accept that the shape of a car is predominantly dictated by physics and legal or safety requirements I don't think there's much left to discuss. All cars of a similar size and mass will be similarly shaped due to these requirements. Bumpers are soft foam filled affairs which are often integrated because of the increased focus on pedestrian safety. That's not great for fender benders in the parking lot but it does decrease the damage done to pedestrians. I won't deny that fashion is also a factor. The dominance of SUV sized vehicles despite that class being fundamentally and intrinsically less safe is the result of that. You can hardly blame manufacturers for this. They merely respond to the constraints of the market from both the legal perspective and the demand. I'd also like to object to the notion of overregulation when vehicle safety and accident survivability has undeniably been improving a lot over the years. Not all regulation is equally successful but as a whole it's definitely a worthwhile endeavour.

[grumpydoc]

Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway

I did not notice that.... Each house in my neighbourhood has cars parked on the driveways, some have 2 and some have 3.

Note that I said own, not "have".

Finally fewer and fewer people actually own cars anyway, financing has moved towards contract hire deals where you never own the vehicle

Better put some numbers on this. I think this shift is caused by people who would previously 'buy' a car and borrow the money from the car dealer. Since the credit-crunch rules for loans have become much stricter so it is likely car dealers don't want the hassle of handling credit applications. A private lease construction is subject to much less rules.

OK, fair call I don't have numbers - BUT I've just bought a car (not on finance) and the contract hire deals are the ones front and centre on the manufacturers websites and are, on the face of it, cheaper per month so  which option are most people going to go for?

You never own the vehicle on these deals, just rent it.

I like owning a car because it's a toy I can tinker with, fix it up, customize it to my liking, I want to own things, I don't rent anything.

Yes, sure, I agree on both the "tinkering" and "dislike rental/credit" front - in fact I suspect this whole forum is populated with people who have a similar opinion.

Agreed. Our cars spend probably 97.5% of the time idle (avg 6K miles per year on one and 4K mi/yr on the other). One is a 2005 Honda bought in 2012. For 40K miles, we’ve put about $4K in gas, $300 in oil changes, $1200 in outsourced repairs, $500 in tires, $400 in parts for DIY repairs, paid $4K in insurance, paid a few hundred for registrations and inspections, and it’s probably worth $4K less than we paid. 40K miles around $15K in expenses. $0.37/mi all in.

For the UK double the gas price I suspect, average is about £5.80 (=$7.45) per (imperial) gallon, say 35mpg is £0.165/mi (=$0.27) just in fuel.

I drive (well, drove until three days ago) an '06 Toyota Celica - say 28-30mpg so my fuel only cost is £0.20/mi (=$0.26), annual mileage 6-8k; servicing, insurance, road tax, tyres, depreciation - realistically £1400 ($1800) pa, lets say £0.20 or $0.26/mi - so my total is a bit more than $0.50/mi - it's not a million miles from your estimate, the difference in fuel will be a lot of it - but I think lends some weight to my comment that $0.28 seems pretty cheap. For reference the UK tax allowance for business car miles is £0.45/mi - I suspect the revenue has a pretty fair idea of realistic running costs.

Like you I tend not to buy new cars so my depreciation is low - if you do buy new the costs can be quite high, looking a a Citroën C1 - pretty small city car, new OTR price  £13560 is £169/mo (=£2028 or $2616 a year) before you have put fuel in, paid road tax or insured it.

No way are we going to use Uber every time we need to go somewhere, even if it was only $0.40/mi, let alone a significant multiple of that!

Maybe not - today at any rate, but I'm not talking about today.

There are other things in play as well as the financing, one is that from 2022 all cars sold in the EU (and the UK) will have to have mandatory safety features such as GPS based speed limiters, lane assist etc - that goes some way to the car doing the driving. Chances are more automation will be added so you will get to the situation (say 2035 ish) where it will not be a big step to 100% automation, at which point it will probably be illegal to tinker with your car in any way at all (well, you might still be allowed fluffy dice).

So, by 2040-2045 (I did say 25 years) you might well have a fleet of autonomous vehicles which are total black boxes and which all drive pretty much the same - why bother "owning" one just for your personal use?

That turned out to be a long post - perhaps a separate "future of private motoring" thread?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

In short, a future that will be worse.

[edy]

An interesting point made on the Reddit thread is doesn't software follow the car or the user? It would be nasty if a company can sell the feature multiple times every time a car transfers ownership. Then again, it's software not hardware. I think the way forward which could mitigate this issue is to sell a monthly subscription or annual subscription to autopilot. Whoever the new owner is will need to sign up and pay. It should not be sold as a "bulk" one time purchase.

One day what if for some reason government regulators determine some major flaw and force all autopilot features on all cars disabled or crippled in capacity in some way. In this scenario, you feel like you paid $8000 for one thing and then get a reduced feature set later. Also, it is a hefty upfront fee and you may own the car for many years and through multiple iterations of software improvements... you've used the feature longer than a new owner and benefited from it. If Tesla required a subscription, say $1200 per year or $99.99 a month, you could decide to use it or not, just cancel subscription. You could activate it any time. After less than 7 years you've paid the $8000 so Tesla keeps raking in the dough. On the other hand, it is not a "must have" feature as they clearly sell cars without it. So if you feel the cost is too steep or you don't need it, then don't use it.

They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.

[nctnico]

They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.

By that time we'll have open source self driving car software.

[Stray Electron]

They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.

By that time we'll have open source self driving car software.

   Umm. Nope.  Government mandated emissions controls and safety requirements will make sure that open source never happens. unless you're willing to spend say, $2,000,000 to PROVE that your open source car meets those requirements.

   Frankly I'd be happen if there was open source for the AC control or the radio in my vehicle but I haven't even seen that yet.

[james_s]

They could even charge you based on number of miles or minutes the autopilot feature is engaged. For example it would be like paying for a "private driver" or taxi service. Every time it is engaged the meter starts ticking. Maybe a flat monthly rate plus usage fees. If you never use it you pay minimal maintenance software fees just for having the convenience of it being instantly available. If you use it a lot (and perhaps increase liability risk to Tesla in case of a problem) then you pay a greater share for the autopilot "program". Again this would fall better perhaps into other subscription based services and not this one-time upfront purchase on a car... it could perhaps solve issues like the one discussed in this thread and other potential problems Tesla and drivers could face in the future.

By that time we'll have open source self driving car software.

   Umm. Nope.  Government mandated emissions controls and safety requirements will make sure that open source never happens. unless you're willing to spend say, $2,000,000 to PROVE that your open source car meets those requirements.

   Frankly I'd be happen if there was open source for the AC control or the radio in my vehicle but I haven't even seen that yet.

Maybe some day somebody will reinvent the DIN slot, it was specifically designed to allow people to install whatever radio they want.

I'm sure it's wishful thinking but I'd love to see a trend toward minimalist cars. I don't mean just removing all the useful controls from the dash to make it look "clean" then hiding everything in a Byzantine menu structure on a TFT, I mean a stripped down basic car that you could customize to your liking, the way it used to be to some degree.

Car makers wonder why millennials don't seem to care about cars. Why would they care? Cars are boring now, they're just transportation appliances, you can choose between differently shapes fake styling elements glued to the outside and that's about it.

[james_s]

Yes car design is encumbered by overregulation of almost every aspect but more so than that the design is driven by fads. Tell me what physics demands rudiculous 20" rims with rubber band tires on a family car. What requirements mandate every car be styled as huge tall fake SUV? Cars look the way they are because they have been optimized to appeal to the broadest range of consumers possible, the middle of the bell curve, the ubiquitous crossover

If this where true then every manufacturer would just make one model. The reality is that all manufacturers make a broad range of cars and for some models even a sedan, station wagon and hatchback. And then there are also manufacturers (Volkswagen, PSA) who make cars under several brands which all aim at the same market segment. SUVs (I think it stands for 'Slow Use Vehicles' because everyone seems to drive them slow) are just a part of the range.

They practically do. Have you not noticed that the bulk of what most makes offer are 2-3 different sizes of very similar looking crossovers? On the bus to and from work I observe a sea of virtually identical looking fake SUVs. Occasionally there is the rare thing that is a bit different, the current fads still mandate an absurdly huge fake grill and ridiculously big wheels on thin tires that give a harsh ride and you blow the tire and bend a rim if you hit a pot hole though so that kills any interest I'd have.

I just hope I can keep finding 80s-90s cars for as long as I need a car, otherwise I'll have to hold my nose and pick up some newer shitbox to have as a daily beater.

[Mr. Scram]

They practically do. Have you not noticed that the bulk of what most makes offer are 2-3 different sizes of very similar looking crossovers? On the bus to and from work I observe a sea of virtually identical looking fake SUVs. Occasionally there is the rare thing that is a bit different, the current fads still mandate an absurdly huge fake grill and ridiculously big wheels on thin tires that give a harsh ride and you blow the tire and bend a rim if you hit a pot hole though so that kills any interest I'd have.

I just hope I can keep finding 80s-90s cars for as long as I need a car, otherwise I'll have to hold my nose and pick up some newer shitbox to have as a daily beater.

Even if it wasn't a hyperbole it seems odd to knock vehicles due to a part that's easy and cheap to change even for non tinkerers.

[tooki]

[Car makers wonder why millennials don't seem to care about cars. Why would they care? Cars are boring now, they're just transportation appliances, you can choose between differently shapes fake styling elements glued to the outside and that's about it.

Millennials don’t care about new cars because they don’t have the money for new cars. It’s not their fault they graduated into an economy that screwed them [over] from the front AND back...