The feature isn’t worth $15,000. They charge you that much to send a small, very specific sequence of bits to your car. That’s what you’re paying for because the feature’s already built in.
Yeah anyone who’s familiar with the “software upgrade” know’s it’s just overpaying to be a beta tester for their self-driving. What’s more; people who don’t buy it still get auto-steer (lane maintain, car pacing & cruise control) which is what most would use self-driving for anyways. Aside from that, if it runs on code there will always be a way to beat it. People have been ripping .DLL files for enterprise software for decades that cost as much or more than this overpriced “feature.”
I feel a bit conflicted on this. On the one hand, charging for heated seats that are already there and which is a purely hardware feature is bullshit.
Other things like Full Self Driving aren’t as black and white. Sure, the sensors are there but those are relatively cheap. A massive part of FSD is the software, and developing this kind of software is extremely expensive.
Should everyone get a copy of Windows and Office for free because it’s ‘just some bits’ and the hardware is already there?
I don’t think licenses and/or subscriptions should be allowable on cars. Selling the car means it might not transfer and there’s little way to ensure it has the software you need.
There have been subscriptions for navigational systems for a long time. It makes sense to me that software that needs constant updates or has stuff run server-side would be licensed. Unlocking hardware features not so much. I don’t see heated seats getting a lot of updates.
I’d agree with your claim of it being fraudulent if you’d paid for FSD and didn’t live up to what you expect FSD to be. But in this case you didn’t pay for the feature so nothing was promised to you that wasn’t delivered on.
To use your microphone analogy: someone is claiming to sell high-end audiophile-grade microphones, you think they are actually shit quality and that somehow gives you the right to steal one.
It should be illegal to sell someone something they do not own. In your windows/office example, I’d say it should be illegal to crack/copy the software, but it should also be illegal to sell the software without an offline method of permanent and irrevocable activation (think offline cd keys), and it should be illegal for a company to put any barriers in front of use (vm, laptop, server, cpu cores, memory limits, etc) and illegal to put any barriers in front of resale. Selling a windows update, or a subscription model to updates seems completely reasonable (and probably should do online blacklists for shared keys) but the fundamentals of ownership shouldn’t be eroded in law.
In the tesla example, your car should be your car. If you can modify the software to give you more features that’s your car. If tesla wants to sell a subscription to incremental upgrades on their self-driving algorithms that’s fine, but they should be liable for any faults in older revisions if they paywall updates. That incentivizes them to do the software equivalent of a recall when something is egregiously or dangerously broken, and also incentivizes innovation because they can’t sell you an update if it doesn’t contain anything valuable.
But nothing is being sold here. Almost no one sells software nowadays. You are getting a license to use someone else’s software under certain conditions.
If you don’t own then aren’t selling it, by definition.
If you go to the movies, do you think that they should sell you the cinema? No, you’re for the right to sit in a seat in the theater for the duration of the movie. That’s it. You know what you’re getting and what you’re paying for. How is software any different?
They could sell you the software, just like they could sell you the entire cinema, but in neither case can you afford it.
I can see your argument, but I think it still stands. A ticket still qualifies as a sale. They aren’t licensing the rights to a film for an hour, they’re selling a physical voucher that grants access to a seat at a specific time during a specific showing. I own that thing and in theory, it’s irrevocable without refunding the purchase price. An operating system and a movie ticket are fundamentally different products.
In my view, the application would be that there should not be limits imposed on the resale or transfer of said ticket once purchased. To reverse the argument, should a movie theater be allowed to sell a ticket and then revoke it without compensation if you show up in a blue shirt? Current digital licensing laws allow for the equivalent; I hurt nobody by installing windows home in a VM.
It’s more like, you pay for windows home edition, which would take up 24gb in your 128gb hard drive. But nope, it’s actually taking up 89gb. Why? Because it has all the features of Windows Ultimate edition, all locked away, taking up precious space in a hard drive that you’ve paid for.
I’m not specifically talking about FSD, and if that is the case, then cool.
But when it’s shit like heated seats, then that’s bullshit. If you ever need to replace your seats, they will make you pay for the expensive model - with that disabled feature.
Anyway. Regardless, I’ll never buy a car with disabled features unless I pay a subscription.
It’s not my analogy, but it does make sense if you even remotely think about it. The downside is that my car carries extra weight in the form of this additional hardware. Teslas are heavy enough as-is with their giant batteries, I’d rather remove any and all unnecessary weight for the sake of my tire tread life (and battery life). Also depending on exactly what the hardware is, it can be an additional point of failure that could potentially cause things that I do have access to to break. Lastly, it’s fair to assume that the price of the car would be cheaper if Tesla didn’t have to install this hardware into every car even if it will never be used, so you are likely already paying for this in “hidden” costs that are just rolled into the total price of the car before even paying to enable the features.
The downside is that my car carries extra weight in the form of this additional hardware.
No it doesn’t. As far as I know FSD doesn’t require additional hardware. It uses the hardware already in the car for other purposes (like lane assist, emergency braking, etc).
The pricing and resale structure for “full self driving” is insane and anti-consumer so I lean towards enabling the software with a jailbreak not being a horrible thing. I certainly would have no issue with this being done on a used car that had the paid “full self driving” software removed by the mothership.
The programmers who wrote the code were already paid, this argument doesn’t really hold up.
They can be paid because the company they work for charges money for what they produce.
The programmers who wrote the code were already paid, this argument doesn’t really hold up.
The idea that all, or even most, software should be open source is also ridiculous.
I think OSS is great, but it’s mainly suitable for a specific class of software. Specifically: software that everyone needs and where there is no point in having a lot of different implementations. If something is needed by everyone, then everyone should pitch in share the cost and effort. Take operating systems: everyone needs a general purpose OS, so having something like Linux makes sense. Everyone needs a HTML rendering engine, so that also makes sense as an OSS project. More specific software with a small target audience is better suited as closed software.
I think OSS is great, but it’s mainly suitable for a specific class of software. Specifically: software that everyone needs and where there is no point in having a lot of different implementations.
Tell me you don’t understand OSS without telling me you don’t understand OSS.
The feature isn’t worth $15,000. They charge you that much to send a small, very specific sequence of bits to your car. That’s what you’re paying for because the feature’s already built in.
Yeah anyone who’s familiar with the “software upgrade” know’s it’s just overpaying to be a beta tester for their self-driving. What’s more; people who don’t buy it still get auto-steer (lane maintain, car pacing & cruise control) which is what most would use self-driving for anyways. Aside from that, if it runs on code there will always be a way to beat it. People have been ripping .DLL files for enterprise software for decades that cost as much or more than this overpriced “feature.”
I feel a bit conflicted on this. On the one hand, charging for heated seats that are already there and which is a purely hardware feature is bullshit.
Other things like Full Self Driving aren’t as black and white. Sure, the sensors are there but those are relatively cheap. A massive part of FSD is the software, and developing this kind of software is extremely expensive.
Should everyone get a copy of Windows and Office for free because it’s ‘just some bits’ and the hardware is already there?
Calling it Full Self Driving is fraud, anyways.
I don’t think licenses and/or subscriptions should be allowable on cars. Selling the car means it might not transfer and there’s little way to ensure it has the software you need.
There have been subscriptions for navigational systems for a long time. It makes sense to me that software that needs constant updates or has stuff run server-side would be licensed. Unlocking hardware features not so much. I don’t see heated seats getting a lot of updates.
So because it’s fraudulent it’s okay to steal it? Makes sense.
Stupid argument, but let’s bite and say yes. You put a mic in my house unlawfully and I discover said mic? I’m keeping the mic.
I’d agree with your claim of it being fraudulent if you’d paid for FSD and didn’t live up to what you expect FSD to be. But in this case you didn’t pay for the feature so nothing was promised to you that wasn’t delivered on.
To use your microphone analogy: someone is claiming to sell high-end audiophile-grade microphones, you think they are actually shit quality and that somehow gives you the right to steal one.
That’s still flawed. We’re not talking about low quality stuff. We’re talking fraudulent stuff - your words.
But that’s not even the point. I guess that’s why people downvoted you.
Not my words. FSD was called fraudulent in this comment
Oh.
It should be illegal to sell someone something they do not own. In your windows/office example, I’d say it should be illegal to crack/copy the software, but it should also be illegal to sell the software without an offline method of permanent and irrevocable activation (think offline cd keys), and it should be illegal for a company to put any barriers in front of use (vm, laptop, server, cpu cores, memory limits, etc) and illegal to put any barriers in front of resale. Selling a windows update, or a subscription model to updates seems completely reasonable (and probably should do online blacklists for shared keys) but the fundamentals of ownership shouldn’t be eroded in law.
In the tesla example, your car should be your car. If you can modify the software to give you more features that’s your car. If tesla wants to sell a subscription to incremental upgrades on their self-driving algorithms that’s fine, but they should be liable for any faults in older revisions if they paywall updates. That incentivizes them to do the software equivalent of a recall when something is egregiously or dangerously broken, and also incentivizes innovation because they can’t sell you an update if it doesn’t contain anything valuable.
But nothing is being sold here. Almost no one sells software nowadays. You are getting a license to use someone else’s software under certain conditions.
Licensing is just a fancy way of saying selling you something that you don’t own.
If you don’t own then aren’t selling it, by definition.
If you go to the movies, do you think that they should sell you the cinema? No, you’re for the right to sit in a seat in the theater for the duration of the movie. That’s it. You know what you’re getting and what you’re paying for. How is software any different?
They could sell you the software, just like they could sell you the entire cinema, but in neither case can you afford it.
I can see your argument, but I think it still stands. A ticket still qualifies as a sale. They aren’t licensing the rights to a film for an hour, they’re selling a physical voucher that grants access to a seat at a specific time during a specific showing. I own that thing and in theory, it’s irrevocable without refunding the purchase price. An operating system and a movie ticket are fundamentally different products.
In my view, the application would be that there should not be limits imposed on the resale or transfer of said ticket once purchased. To reverse the argument, should a movie theater be allowed to sell a ticket and then revoke it without compensation if you show up in a blue shirt? Current digital licensing laws allow for the equivalent; I hurt nobody by installing windows home in a VM.
The windows analogy is almost there.
It’s more like, you pay for windows home edition, which would take up 24gb in your 128gb hard drive. But nope, it’s actually taking up 89gb. Why? Because it has all the features of Windows Ultimate edition, all locked away, taking up precious space in a hard drive that you’ve paid for.
So you’re worried about the hard disk space in your car ? Can you even access that as an end-user?
deleted by creator
What components are adding weight? AFAIK the components used by FSD are already in use by other features.
I’m not specifically talking about FSD, and if that is the case, then cool.
But when it’s shit like heated seats, then that’s bullshit. If you ever need to replace your seats, they will make you pay for the expensive model - with that disabled feature.
Anyway. Regardless, I’ll never buy a car with disabled features unless I pay a subscription.
But I am.
I agree, as I said here
Got it.
Do you know what an analogy is?
Sure, but your analogy doesn’t make any sense. There is no downside to you because of this feature being in your car in a disabled state.
That was my analogy, not of the person you replied for.
Disabled features also add complexity to your car, which may or may not affect how much you pay for repairs.
It’s not my analogy, but it does make sense if you even remotely think about it. The downside is that my car carries extra weight in the form of this additional hardware. Teslas are heavy enough as-is with their giant batteries, I’d rather remove any and all unnecessary weight for the sake of my tire tread life (and battery life). Also depending on exactly what the hardware is, it can be an additional point of failure that could potentially cause things that I do have access to to break. Lastly, it’s fair to assume that the price of the car would be cheaper if Tesla didn’t have to install this hardware into every car even if it will never be used, so you are likely already paying for this in “hidden” costs that are just rolled into the total price of the car before even paying to enable the features.
No it doesn’t. As far as I know FSD doesn’t require additional hardware. It uses the hardware already in the car for other purposes (like lane assist, emergency braking, etc).
Most softwares work this way. You download the full thing. Your subscription level dictate what feature you can use.
Maybe today. That was not always the case. Especially software that attempts ti thwart piracy.
E.g. music packages.
The pricing and resale structure for “full self driving” is insane and anti-consumer so I lean towards enabling the software with a jailbreak not being a horrible thing. I certainly would have no issue with this being done on a used car that had the paid “full self driving” software removed by the mothership.
I mean, people should be using open source software and Tesla should have its best software on every car for public safety.
Should programmers work for free? Will someone provide me with a free car to develop this on? Will someone provide me with a free test track?
Most of the Internet as well as the Fediverse is built on open source software by people who aren’t working for free.
Should I be hit by a self-driving car by someone who didn’t pay extra to make it safer?
The programmers who wrote the code were already paid, this argument doesn’t really hold up.
Also, the notion of people automatically not getting paid because open source is a farce.
They can be paid because the company they work for charges money for what they produce.
The idea that all, or even most, software should be open source is also ridiculous.
I think OSS is great, but it’s mainly suitable for a specific class of software. Specifically: software that everyone needs and where there is no point in having a lot of different implementations. If something is needed by everyone, then everyone should pitch in share the cost and effort. Take operating systems: everyone needs a general purpose OS, so having something like Linux makes sense. Everyone needs a HTML rendering engine, so that also makes sense as an OSS project. More specific software with a small target audience is better suited as closed software.
Tell me you don’t understand OSS without telling me you don’t understand OSS.
So if I need to have some very specific software developed for my company, why would that need to be OSS?
Free and open source software is indeed fantastic.