I thought this was going to be a safety reason, however it appears to be purely economic. Essentially trying to sell something twice. I hope the driver gets his money back, if that was a feature he really wanted.
That not only impacts those who purchase the cars used, but also those who are buying it new need to understand if they are paying for a feature that remains with the auto, or a feature that is attached to an enduser
Could be an insurance reason too. They new owner might have to sign some type of waivers, there could be an ongoing cost to running the software etc etc etc. It is not really a black and white issue as autopilot is still not legal everywhere, and these cars haven't been given the green light.
Consumerism sucks and paying for stuff twice sucks, but I have a feeling there's more to it than just plain greed, even if we know that exists.
Heya, I vote you for witness. I received a memo telling me that if I don't stop voting for you I will be automatically downvoted on all my posts?
I don't feel like getting bullied into changing my witness votes, but, it still sucks to get memo's like that. Any idea what triggered this type of memo?
I did read your article and commented on some of your comments - don't know where else to contact you.
I am guessing a lot of that 8000$ covers insurance and development. There is probably a whole lot of stuff you must agree to.
Maybe the dealer should have to pay for not making it clear? Or the customer should get a refund?
The other week I wrote about the ownership of technology after Sonos stopped supporting software on some of their products that were still available for retail sale. I have some Phillips Hue lights - they can basically flick a switch and leave me in the dark.
I think the person buying the car has a legitimate fraud claim here since the item purchased was advertised with the feature by the company that owns the IP.
If that's the licensing model they want to use, they need to be consistent. Like, if I bought a fleet of Tesla vehicles, all the same model, and the license can only work with one vehicle, can I transfer the license from one to the other?
Wow! That's bullshit!
I thought this was going to be a safety reason, however it appears to be purely economic. Essentially trying to sell something twice. I hope the driver gets his money back, if that was a feature he really wanted.
Cg
ELON MUSK is a CONMAN Remember I called it here first............
How do you define a conman?
Cg
When DLC comes to cars.
I guess purchasing cars will be more and more expensive in future.
That not only impacts those who purchase the cars used, but also those who are buying it new need to understand if they are paying for a feature that remains with the auto, or a feature that is attached to an enduser
Could be an insurance reason too. They new owner might have to sign some type of waivers, there could be an ongoing cost to running the software etc etc etc. It is not really a black and white issue as autopilot is still not legal everywhere, and these cars haven't been given the green light.
Consumerism sucks and paying for stuff twice sucks, but I have a feeling there's more to it than just plain greed, even if we know that exists.
Heya, I vote you for witness. I received a memo telling me that if I don't stop voting for you I will be automatically downvoted on all my posts?
I don't feel like getting bullied into changing my witness votes, but, it still sucks to get memo's like that. Any idea what triggered this type of memo?
I did read your article and commented on some of your comments - don't know where else to contact you.
The markymark made a reply, it's the one above this topic so posted after your comment
Heya, thanks for letting me know.
I am guessing a lot of that 8000$ covers insurance and development. There is probably a whole lot of stuff you must agree to.
Maybe the dealer should have to pay for not making it clear? Or the customer should get a refund?
Yup, there is probably more to that $8000 price, but this doesn't seem to have been written by a Tesla supporter.
Can you clarify what you mean buy 'this'?
“This” meaning the article, news bit, memo, or whatever we are calling it.
The other week I wrote about the ownership of technology after Sonos stopped supporting software on some of their products that were still available for retail sale. I have some Phillips Hue lights - they can basically flick a switch and leave me in the dark.
sucks to be you if your using autopilot at the time
"for control of the car, please pay $8000"
yeah ok i'll pay but can you wait till i get home. kinda busy at the moment
"if your hands are full, try using our patented autopilot system"
I would assume Tesla would be at least smart enough to verify the car is parked and off before making any changes.
Ahaha, that's a lot of faith in "smart people."
Thats fucked up!
I mean, its a smart business model, but its confusing and annoying to deal with :/
I think the person buying the car has a legitimate fraud claim here since the item purchased was advertised with the feature by the company that owns the IP.
If that's the licensing model they want to use, they need to be consistent. Like, if I bought a fleet of Tesla vehicles, all the same model, and the license can only work with one vehicle, can I transfer the license from one to the other?