Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range

Re:Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range by AinderS on Tuesday July 26, 2022 @01:48PM (#32241405)

Contracts and DRM are two sides of the same coin when it comes to chipping away at ownership. They want to segment the market as finely as possible, to capture all of the excess value of their product.

E.g. they don't want to sell you a general-purpose GPU, but a GPU that's good for one purpose only, and you have to pay extra to use it for anything else [1]. Tesla is leading the way [2], but I'm sure other automakers are also trying to come up with ways to restrict "personal" vehicles from being used for "commercial" activities.

[1] Nvidia’s updates EULA to ban the use of gamer-oriented GPUs in data centers - https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/nvidia-bans-consumer...

[2] Don’t plan on using your autonomous Tesla to earn money with Uber or Lyft - https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/10/dont-plan-on-using-an-a...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range by cowtools on Tuesday July 26, 2022 @02:25PM (#32241946)

I have always suspected that nvidia's closed source drivers are an intentional result of hiding poorly-implemented limitations (see code 43 error, etc.) for the sake of market segmentation between data-center and gaming models. They would be screwed if data centers realized they could just reuse cheap off-the-shelf components for a fraction of the price.

Not to mention they benefit from building up a proprietary ecosystem (CUDA, etc.) from collecting data from users (geforce now, etc.).

It's something of a conspiracy theory.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla remotely converts battery pack, cutting 1/3 of range by judge2020 on Tuesday July 26, 2022 @08:06PM (#32245562)

Do you think CUDA development would be completely sustained by the profit margins of consumer cards (that would then be shared between the CUDA and gpu research teams)?

[ Parent | on HN ]