For cars with automatic software updates, I suspect Tesla could exert some influence over how fast the car degrades. Forced obsolescence has been used before, and some companies got away with it. Though doing it with cars would probably be going way too far for a lot of people.

For what it's worth Tesla has been limiting how fast older models are able to charge at superchargers, with the stated goal of extending battery longevity. I guess there's some truth to the stated goal, but I imagine it was more about nudging people to start charging at home. The affected models happen to be a lot of those with unlimited supercharging.

I think the offer they've made is a decent one. Looking at my charging habits I would actually have preferred the $5k rebate over 6 years of supercharging. I wouldn't want to spend 30 minutes every week at supercharger, and charging over-night at home is dirt cheap.

> "For what it's worth Tesla has been limiting how fast older models are able to charge at superchargers, with the stated goal of extending battery longevity."

This limitation is not based on the vehicle model you drive but based on the age and condition of the battery. Certain high-milage battery packs that have been supercharged frequently during their life tend to be the ones affected.

But if you replace an old, rate-limited battery with a new (or newer) one, you get back the full charging speed.

You're right. But they only recently started removing the rate-limiting when you got a new pack, which there was a lot of fuss about. I imagine there's quite an overlap of cars with unlimited supercharging and frequent supercharging.

> charging over-night at home is dirt cheap

Today it is, but "energy crisis" headlines are pilling up.

>Tesla has been limiting how fast older models are able to charge at superchargers, with the stated goal of extending battery longevity.

Apple didn't get away with slowing down iPhones for this stated purpose, what makes Tesla think they can get away with it?

Tesla didn’t try to hide it and it’s only affecting charging not the overall performance of the car?

Yes, they did. The fine was a lot less than they profited from planned obsolescence.

Tesla seem pretty good for this. Even some of the oldest cars (eg: original Model S from 2012) still receive software updates.

I don't think that's particularly impressive, given that we're talking about a car.

Getting software updates for a car AT ALL is _really_ impressive.

Yes, they update the maps every now and then when you take it to the service and when they remember to plug the laptop in for the map update. But an actual update that adds new features is next to unheard-of.

Actual new features beyond map updates for a 10+ year old car? Never been done before by any brand ever.

But does your ten-year-old car have an internet-connected computer that is potentially vulnerable to malicious attackers? Note that I don't drive and know very little about cars, but my understanding was that Tesla's system was the kind of computer where software updates would be essential, and other cars less so.

(I generally think the "all out-of-date devices must be burned" mantra is a tad overblown, but they are at least somewhat dangerous in a way that non-networked computers are not.)

Teslas are essentially computers with cars built around them.

Traditional have cars and they are trying to shove computers into them.

The traditional model of upgrading infotainment software has been "lol, buy a new car" for a good quarter of a century now. But now Tesla is changing the expectations with Joe mode and Dog mode starting as someone requesting stuff from Elon and the feature appearing OTA in a matter of weeks.

Dog Mode, is still a rarity in EVs for some reason. It's a dead simple feature: "allow the heating/ac to work while car is locked, optionally display internal temperature on infotainment display so that people don't break the windows to 'rescue' the dogs".

The few that have it (Polestar and Mercedes I think) limit the usage to max 30 minutes.

All other things being equal, there's nothing wrong with trying to shove computers into a car.

Trouble starts when the computer is networked and therefore vulnerable to more attacks. And for networked computers, security updates are table stakes. Feature updates are merely nice.

To compare apples to apples, you need to compare Tesla to another brand of networked cars.

I have a Toyota RAV4 that is networked and this is a sad joke.

Toyota lives in the 90's from a cyber technology perspective. It is so bad that I wonder how the engineers who work there can say to themselves "I did something great".

I do not know other cars but I guess this is similar.

> All other things being equal, there's nothing wrong with trying to shove computers into a car.

I think that's preferable. That Teslas are "computers with a car built around them" that phone home to the mothership and get automatic updates is the main reason why I will never buy a Tesla.

> "The few that have it (Polestar and Mercedes I think) limit the usage to max 30 minutes."

Huh? So what happens after 30 minutes? The car heats up and the dog cooks?!

The AC just stops. I think some brands send you a notification on your phone.

There are no technical reasons not to have the ac/heating run longer, they just decided to cap it to an arbitrary 30 minutes.

>Getting software updates for a car AT ALL is _really_ impressive.

It doesn't sound impressive so much as excessive and dangerous. I would not want to purchase a car, which drives at high speeds on the road, the functionality of which depends on regular software updates from a company. I want a car that runs, won't kill me, and is easily and cheaply repairable. As far as I can tell, Teslas don't satisfy any of those concerns even if you spend a lot of money to service them.

Even the juicero couldn't kill you because of a software error...Tesla increasingly seems to me to be a piece of Silicon Valley fluff, and a dangerous one at that.

It is when you consider that not even google has accomplished this with android.

To put it in perspective, a new car typically has a 3-5 year warranty while a new phone has a one year warranty (unless the local law requires a longer warranty).

btw Android is not an end product like a car and Google doesn't really "provide updates" for Android phones, but I'll let they pass.

They do for Pixel phones, only 3 years iirc

Android vs. a 3 ton vehicle?

The only impressive thing about Google’s work with Android updates is they have convinced many people dropping support for a computer in less than two years is an acceptable behavior.

I don’t think there are many other car brands who provide regular software updates for their 2012 models.

Most cars from 2012 don't NEED regular software updates.

What does the all-caps “need” even mean in this sentence?

Most cars don't get functional software updates at all, save for a situation that would otherwise warrant a recall.

That would be a terrible move though, especially now with the brand in crisis because of Musk's recent behaviour.

What makes you say the brand is in crisis?

Asking because I am curious to see this take, not to dispute it.

Because Tesla is a brand that relied entirely on the CEO for PR/Marketing.

And it's indisputable that Twitter is in serious trouble.

By Musk's own admission the company is worth less than half what he paid for it. Revenue has plummeted, toxicity is rampant, lawsuits are increasing and Twitter Blue has been a disaster that will likely be researched for years.

And so all of this chaos has dragged Musk's reputation down which in turn is affecting Tesla.

I don't think Tesla is necessarily in crisis, but Musk's behaviour definitely has some impact on the trust people have in his company. It's still a big car brand obviously, but to a lot of people, Tesla isn't as cool anymore. Backpedaling on promises isn't going to help.

Well it’s that + they’ve never had a big exterior design overhaul for their vehicles. So they’ve been pretty much selling the same cars for 10 years now.

Eventually it gets old when everyone has the same looking car.

To be perfectly honest, I think most cars these days look the same. It seems like there's only a handful of designs that most car makers tend to stick to, with only minor variations.

Was going to say this too. Compared to 40 years ago, car designs are not very diverse. I suppose because there is an optimal aerodynamic shape for each class of car, and we are converging on that.

Hyundai and Rivian both have really interesting and atypical design. There are also some very interesting designs in the microcar segment where aerodynamics don't matter as much.

That's true. The Ioniq for example looks so different in each iteration.

I agree in general, but what about the cybertruck? Probably the most radical design of a production car in a long time.

This is true, but have any buyers taken delivery? Do they know when they'll be able to?

Right, there has been no production yet. Last I heard they will start shipping Q3 this year (but I doubt it).

Which is good environmentally - cheaper to produce, less bugs, cheaper maintenance.

Tesla has two problems right now: fewer cars sold despite price cuts and quality issues are finally reaching courts which may also affect their brand image.

Is this a crisis? Too early to say, but nevertheless this all happend while competitors are catching up and latest offerings from German manufacturers looks very promising. There is a very real chance Tesla can loose the luxury EV segment.

I don't know. I have a 2014 Model S that I'd like to replace. The list of EVs that are actually _available now_ at list price as opposed to an order/wait list or an upcharge over list from dealer is pretty small (another Tesla, Chevy Bolt, Porsche Tacan/Audi eTron GT).

I agree there will soon be more choices, but that's going to be a problem in 2 years, especially in the luxury segment.

Hyundai Ioniq?

That is a really small selection.

This year everyone from Mini to Royce Rolls are selling EVs. Some such as BMW and Polestar are on their 3rd generation.

To add to the comments already made - IMO it's because the customer base is generally left leaning environmentally aware types, and Musk's public behaviour recently is not well aligned with that. Electric cars are still not fully mainstream, but there are many more options from other manufacturers now. He's basically alienated a lot of the consumers that were "brand champions".

So what I have seen him say and do seems genuine and I don’t really think this is happening, but what if the environmentally aware types market is saturated and he is trying to push the brand into a new demographic— pickup truck buyers, I suppose, and interestingly they have a pickup truck planned as well…

That's an interesting take on the situation. I find it hard to believe though - for one thing it would be a huge risk to reorientate your brand like that, and also the designs for their pickups are not exactly conservative. (Incidentally I have a pre-order for the cybertruck - it was only 100EUR, and refundable, so kind of a casual decision. No news on when they will be available still though!).

It depends on whether it impacts “repeat purchases” or “first time test drives”. I could see the political stuff impacting the latter significantly more than the former, assuming the product is good. But again I don’t think it’s actually happening, it would be too Machiavellian for reality.

I think it will impact both - surely a lot of the potential repeat purchases are from people that had ethical motivations to buy an electric car - they probably wont give up on electric, but there are a number of good alternative options now on the market.

I think it basically boils down to whether the political stuff can cause a significant portion of the existing user base to start boycotting the brand. That sounds kind of extreme given the situation but I am not completely in touch with mainstream media driven perception.

Most competent businesspeople can manage to expand their offerings into other markets without alienating the existing ones. Emphasis on "competent."

If hubris were to creep up on anyone, I'd say the richest man on Earth is a good candidate for it.

Formerly richest man.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/12/elon-musk-is-no-longer-the-r...

/pedant

I think you are assuming the hubris arrived only recently...

No, no, I'm merely being pedantic and correcting your inaccurate characterization of him.

I have no doubt that hubris is a longstanding character defect in his case.

There were people claiming his Twitter fiasco is part of some "5D chess" plan, and the only plan I've been able to identify that could make his behaviour somewhat rational, is this all being part of a big gambit where he alienates liberals to the point that conservatives start to love him so much that they will buy his electric cars out of team loyalty.

It sounds like a very long shot, though.

I don't agree with many things he's said, however, having his his own opinions or expressing them, or running his companies how he believes will make them a success doesn't strike me as bad behaviour. Certainly, he's excelled going his way so far.

It's undeniable that he's achieved amazing things with telsa and spaceX, but he's constantly undermining himself with his public statements.

Everybody believed he was a genius, a real-life Tony Stark, and then he started to believe that too, and thought he couldn't fail. And that's when the crazy ideas came.

If he'd stuck to running Tesla and SpaceX to the best of his ability, without picking stupid internet fights, and keeping his Twitter addiction in check, he'd still have all that respect, and not just wasted $44B.

It seems to me that he's quite mindful of the possibility of failure - he's often quoted as saying that gambled everything on telsa, but only estimated a 10% chance of success (who knows if he really believed that at the time). And I think he's the closest thing we have to a real life tony stark - he's certainly a visionary. I get the impression that his odd tweets, and decisions like buying Twitter, happened after too much "red wine, ambien and vintage records".

But he's quite clearly not a "real life Tony Stark". He didn't invent any of the stuff he sells. He didn't found Tesla, but bought it. He may claim he's directly involved in designing SpaceX rockets, but that's most likely a lie. Or maybe he believes it to be true; a couple of months ago, someone claimed that SpaceX had people whose job it was to distract Musk and make him believe he was contributing.

The way he mismanaged Twitter makes pretty clear he doesn't really know what he's doing. Even if the decision to buy was made after too much wine, he's had plenty of time to sober up since then, but he just keeps doubling down on all the worst decisions.

He's a great salesman. Or was, at least. He was like Steve Jobs who could sell the amazing work of Woz and other Apple engineers. But that charisma has gotten seriously dented now.

> Even if the decision to buy was made after too much wine, he's had plenty of time to sober up since then

Well if he has bad habits, like a lot of us do, then its not just a matter of sobering up like it's a one time event.

> But that charisma has gotten seriously dented now.

The guy never had natural charisma in my opinion - a kind of glamour perhaps, from the wealth and achievements. I don't see the comparison with Jobs though, who was a natural salesman - Musk is a terrible public speaker, and should probably let other execs in his companies do the presentations.

Regarding the Stark comparison - IMO it doesn't matter how involved he really was with the engineering, or that he bought tesla etc - isn't it impressive enough that he made stuff happen? Can you nominate a better candidate for that comparison?

I don't mean to be confrontational though, and I respect your points.

>isn't it impressive enough that he made stuff happen?

But he didn't make stuff happen, he just paid for it. Why should we consider "Have enough money to pay for someone else to do good things" an impressive trait? Maybe we should stop deifying management for just doing a useful thing once in a while in between all the milking franchises and wealth extraction.

No one was more instrumental than Musk in making Tesla and SpaceX happen.

People who haven’t tried to run a company often fundamental misunderstand the nature the extent of the job, but claiming Musk is just “doing a useful thing once in a while in between all the milking franchises and wealth extraction” comes off like sour grapes.

It’s abundantly clear to anyone who has closely followed the development of SpaceX and Tesla the tremendous positive impact both technical and managerial that Elon has had in his companies.

I think it’s a truly bizarre smear to claim he nor Jobs “didn’t invent any of the stuff he sells” when they are perhaps the two most notable technical visionaries of our time.

> He didn't found Tesla, but bought it.

I guess you can make that argument if you tilt your head and squint a certain way.

But he did become involved in Tesla when the company had only 3 employees, and contributed >85% of the series A funding (and also led the B and C rounds). He's been there for 19 of the company's 19.5 years of existence... hardly a new kid on the block.

Might be interesting to consider whether you live in a bubble.

It's always worth looking outside your bubble. His mismanagement of Twitter has not exactly improved people's trust in how he's running his other companies. There was definitely a significant chunk of hype in the enthusiasm for Tesla and SpaceX, and that's really been dying down. It's not as "cool" to get a Tesla anymore, and that's undeniably brand damage.

> It's not as "cool" to get a Tesla anymore, and that's undeniably brand damage.

To unpackage this further: a big part of Tesla's "cool" was that in allowed customers have luxury and performance while not trading off being "green", and by implication being pro-social. It was a have-your-cake-and-eat-it deal, for those who could afford it. People who had to accept tradeoffs bought a Nissan Leaf.

Now there are more EV options, and Musk's behavior has done irreparable damage to the pro-social brand associations that Tesla had. It's now more associated with the tech-bro archetype, and all the baggage that carries, similar to how Wall St guys were associated with Lambos a few decades ago.

That said, I still see plenty of new Teslas on the road in liberal areas, but they are often rationalized in practical terms, not with the religious zeal that customers used to have.

I agree. I think the fact that tesla started with the roadster was a genius move - proving that electric cars can be far superior in performance compared to ICE. Everyone else in the space was going for boring efficiency, and they showed that it could be the best of both worlds.

TBH I'm astonished by how many Teslas I see here in rural MN. Even saw my first Rivian last week!

Ok. Please enlighten me then... I imagine we are all living in bubbles to a degree. What bubble do you think I'm living in?

Tesla is actually doing really well now that Musk is busy recouping the 20 billion he's lost on Twitter already. =)

I think it's too early to say, I think we need to see how well they perform a year or so from now.

Zero evidence “the brand is in crisis.” Your repetition of of this suggests you are (most likely unintentionally) playing a validation role in the “wrap-up smear.”

Excuse me - what do you mean by my "repetition" of this? I've only expressed this view today, in response to this thread. I'm also not familiar with the term “wrap-up smear" - perhaps I am guilty of that, could you explain please?

You assert “the brand is in crisis.” Is this your mere speculation? The very nature of a brand involves community reputation.

A gossip campaign of an improperly predicated assertion is called a “wrap-up smear” in some circles. What’s your basis?

Tesla customer service strategy falling into the ship of theseus issue.

For the purpose of identity - I believe that all you need is the VIN - there have been some questionable restorations of classic cars with largely new replacement parts but the original VIN plates gives the ability to charge as if it were a 'restored' original car.

> "Important to note that the unlimited charging is for the life of the vehicle, not for the life of the customer."

My Dad had a 2019 Model X, which I think was one of the last to be offered with unlimited free supercharging. He loved it but unfortunately someone crashed into it and it was written off. A double blow because the Model X is not currently sold in our country, so he's had to wait a long time (and is still waiting) for a replacement, and secondly he's lost the unlimited free supercharging.

curious how tesla deals with a potential issue re ship of theseus?