To have FSD requires the purchase of two products: the hardware and the software.
Cars purchased from 2016 onwards were claimed to already have the hardware. It is possible to purchase the car with the hardware for FSD only, and not the software. People in this situation were told that they already had the hardware for FSD. Now Tesla is saying that they don’t.
As the owner of two Teslas, as an investor, as a True Believer I have to say that Tesla fucked up here and need to be sued to make it right if they don’t fix this. Not with a “subscribe for two years and get it free.” They should just get the chip installed for free.
Anyway, this was all before the subscription package. Things are not the same as they were in 2016 with the introduction of the 200/mo subscription. By saying "your cars have the hardware to do FSD" it means they're fitted with all the required accessories. If Tesla needs to give them a more powerful computer as a complementary upgrade once they purchase FSD, so be it. It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD. And like we've already covered, if you purchase FSD in full, the chip is entirely free.
I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a subscription or not. Either FSD remains only accessible in a "bulk purchase attached to the car" capacity, or Telsa figures out how to work the economics of adding in a subscription model. I tend to think this subscription model opens up FSD to more people than not having it, so I think it's a net positive.
This does not change the fundamental fact that Tesla promised something and then did not deliver it. That is, they promised that the hardware shipping with the vehicles 2016 onward were FSD capable. They are not. Remember —- they took investor cash after this announcement. That matters.
> It doesn't make sense for Tesla to just ship out a bunch of the more powerful chips to people who never intend on using FSD.
By this you mean: “It isn’t in Tesla’s best immediate financial interest.” But we have laws and norms in place in the US to counter balance the interest of corporations vs that of customers. Two of those laws and norms is not lying to your customers and making them whole whole whenever you make a mistake.
As well, cars go through several owners. People purchased Teslas after the announcement with the value calculation that it was FSD capable. Tesla essentially robbed those customers of $1500 of resale value. That is, the customers expected to buy a car they could resell as FSD capable. Now they can’t.
>And as a high margin buyer it doesn't sit well with me knowing Tesla is subsidizing free HW upgrades out of my purchase price so it just feels like moving the problem around not actually solving it.
You shouldn’t buy high margin products if you care what the company does with the high margin. The same goes for Apple products. Apple’s high margin goes to pay devs and for decades long R+D products, many of them will fail. It also goes to pay settlements when they fuck up. Them’s the breaks.
The only reason the topic came up is because you lead with "low margin buyers are subsidized all the time so they should also be subsidized by high margin buyers in this case". While a company may choose to do that, and I really don't care if they do, in the context of an external discussion about which strategy is better, I do care to respond to that point when presented as part of an argument by an equally outside party.
This is how the specific point comes off to me:
Alice: I'm annoyed Tesla's new subscription requires a $1500 upgrade for my older model, Tesla said it was FSD capable. Make me whole.
Bob: I already paid in full for my FSD subscription and got the hardware included, why should you get it for free?
Alice: Because Tesla could use revenue from people who have already purchased FSD in full to fund my hardware upgrade.
Bob: Sure, they could. But now my "investment" in FSD doesn't go as far as I thought it would and I'm "out" $1500. Make me whole.
...
Anyway that's just why I think some sort of compromise makes tons of sense so that nobody perceives themselves as being out anything and people who want to use the subscription can get the HW for "free" rather than the up front $1500. You've changed my mind on that front (:
As I understand it, these are people who already paid for FSD. The same FSD that Tesla claimed was ready to go except for regulatory hurdles. Tesla should give these people what they paid for, or refund that money (with interest) if they're not actually able to live up to their end of the bargain.
From the link's screenshot of Tesla's 10/19/2016 post:
> We are excited to announce that, as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory -- including Model 3 -- will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.
That's a clear marketing claim.
Not sure you can start deprecating before you deliver.
If you sell the alpha with the promise of it supporting the full game, and then charge again when you release the beta no less, I could understand being upset.
How comes the engineers didn't see that coming?
That people thought this company, unique amongst every other manufacturer wouldn't do planned obselesence is part of the massive marketing success of the company.
Incorrect.
These are people who were told they were buying the hardware that allowed FSD.
If the promise boils down to the blog announcement on their blog, the line is 'all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver.'
IMO (not a lawyer), it feels like they didn't tell you it would be the latest, greatest, continually supported in perpetuity, never changing hardware. They told you it had hardware that could support a full self-driving system that is safer than a human. Hardware that they do not support now.
I haven't interacted with any Tesla sales folks, but I feel like if you asked about a commitment like this, even before this subscription service, no one is going to commit to that.
They made it clear it's up to you to purchase the self-driving software, and that is where all the magic is. And to boot, the available agreement when people purchased the car is still on the table; if you give them $10k, they will give you hardware. If you want the subscription, you need to have/acquire the supported hardware.
If they had a contract like a phone (which dislike that business model) where you commit to X months, I could see it. But I too wouldn't want to be handing these out to have people cancel after a month.
And this turned out to not be true, because if it were, they would have released FSD on this hardware.
Just imagine if Microsoft sold you PC hardware that they claimed would support windows 11 back in 2016, but now require a processor upgrade to support it. This is exactly the same situation.
the original can (theoretically) play games, but no one with a license wrote any.
They probably won't get there with any hardware package in the next 10 years. But this is a present admission that older generation cars are not currently capable of what Tesla considers FSD without a hardware upgrade.
They continually seem to draw a very prominent line between "Full Self-Driving" and "Autonomous", where what Tesla defines as autonomous is the much higher standard (i.e summon your car from one coast to the other).
I would in that light, argue that Tesla's hurdle for saying a given car is FSD capable is really low, because imo, it seems like they are comfortable saying Level 2 is like, Full Self-Driving (Beta).
Nevermind, I misunderstood:)