Why do people always seem to single out Tesla when complaining about stuff like that? Are they really worse than any other automaker in that regard? How much of Toyota's firmware can you audit?
Source: I own a model 3
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-forced-an-upda...
https://mobile.twitter.com/greentheonly/status/1222613978427...
I’d also consider remote feature removal a form of unattended update–the first of which really made the news a pretty long time ago when they disabled autopilot on all Tesla’s in Hong Kong.
1: People in fact do routinely successfully modify or wholly replace the ecu code in other cars.
2: And they even only do that for fun (tuning). Most vehicles never give people any reason to even want to mod the software since other vehicles haven't had nearly as much history of being as invasive or caprcious. They are starting tonadopt these undesirable norms lately, but that is because of Tesla leading by example and making it at all thinkable.
A Toyota firmware from a few years ago had very little capacity to harm or offend or frustrate since it simply wasn't in control of very much, and didn't change or do anything different after purchase, and ultimately was at least replaceable by replacing the entire ecu if not by hacking the stock one, and also the stock one was hackable. Not officially or by design, but people do it anyway.
If you thought you were conjuring up some ridiculous idea, in fact it is a very common thing, and yes Tesla is by far absolutely ridiculously worse than everyone else on this front.
Did the manufacturer let them do this, or did they have to do something equivalent of a jailbreak to do it?
> Most vehicles never give people any reason to even want to mod the software since other vehicles haven't had nearly as much history of being as invasive or caprcious. They are starting tonadopt these undesirable norms lately, but that is because of Tesla leading by example and making it at all thinkable.
Didn't OnStar exist before Tesla did?
On-star was more wrong in principle that in actuality.
The worst thing about on-star was simply that even if you didn't pay for the service, it was still there and could both track and to a very limited extent control the vehicle under someone else's control. But in fact they never did anything much with it, and now it's not even a thing anymore, and if you wanted as an owner you could hack it out without disabling the car. on-star is on the same spectrum with tesla, at opposite ends.
But if you know enough to even mention the name on-star in this context, then you know enough to know it doesn't actually compare at all, which exposes something unflattering about your argument.
Tesla absolutely deserves no breaks or excuses on this or a few other topics.
OnStar still exists, and to my knowledge, all of the stuff you mentioned is still possible with it.
> if you wanted as an owner you could hack it out without disabling the car
This is true of Teslas too. Some of their earlier cars only supported 3G, so we know from the 3G shutdown exactly what you'd lose with no connectivity at all, and it's not that much: https://electrek.co/2022/02/23/tesla-vehicles-3g-modems-are-...
> Without an upgraded modem, you will not be able to:
> * Remotely control climate controls, locks and charge settings
> * Get navigation and traffic updates, including Supercharger availability and outage information
> * Stream music online using your touchscreen
> * Receive remote diagnostic support from roadside assistance
> * Access over-the-air software updates
Tesla is in the news fairly frequently due to them revoking peoples features, is toyota?
People single out Tesla because they are the "John Deere" of automobiles.
I have a Hyundai, i can have it serviced pretty much anywhere, can you take your Tesla to the local mechanic?
I think these behaviors are horrible and I'm not defending them. My point is that it's an industrywide problem, not just a Tesla problem.
> Tesla is in the news fairly frequently due to them revoking peoples features, is toyota?
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/12/toyota-owners-have-to-p...
And if you say one occurrence isn't "frequently", then when was the last time Tesla was in the news for that before this most recent case of reducing one owner's battery range?
> People single out Tesla because they are the "John Deere" of automobiles.
How so?
> I have a Hyundai, i can have it serviced pretty much anywhere, can you take your Tesla to the local mechanic?
For most things I can. Can your local mechanic replace broken parts in the high-voltage system of your Ioniq 5, or reflash its infotainment system?
Great you sent me a link about paying $8 to use your remote start.
why are there so many stories like this one:
"Right off of the top, it’s no secret that Tesla will disable features before reselling a used vehicle that’s traded into it. While that might sound shady it’s within their right to do so. What isn’t so common is the situation that led to one owner walking out of his house one day to find his Model S with 80 miles less range than just a few minutes previous."
Is this not "john Deere" type activities?
how about this: "Tesla’s $16,000 Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters"
or this: Hundreds of Tesla drivers were locked out of their cars at the start of the weekend after the manufacturer’s mobile app suffered an outage – and dozens voiced their complaints on social media.
If the software doesn't work, neither does your car, is this not things "John Deere" is known for?
i dont drive an Ioniq so i wouldn't know the answer to your question.
I don't agree with this.
> paying $8 to use your remote start
An $8/month subscription, not an $8 one-time payment.
> why are there so many stories like this one
Again, when was the last time this happened?
> Tesla will disable features before reselling a used vehicle that’s traded into it
This isn't the same thing at all. There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it. If someone traded in an ICE car with a turbocharger, would it be wrong for a dealer to remove that before selling it?
> What isn’t so common is the situation that led to one owner walking out of his house one day to find his Model S with 80 miles less range than just a few minutes previous." Is this not "john Deere" type activities?
Yes, that's definitely wrong of them and "John Deere" type activities. But you originally made a stronger statement, that Tesla is the John Deere of automobiles. For that to be true, they'd have to do significantly more of these "John Deere" type activities than other automakers do, which they don't.
> how about this: "Tesla’s $16,000 Quote for a $700 Fix Is Why Right to Repair Matters"
They originally asked for $16,000 to replace a part that someone else later successfully repaired for $700. They didn't stop him from doing so, remotely brick the vehicle afterward, or anything like that. Isn't this how things are supposed to work?
> or this: Hundreds of Tesla drivers were locked out of their cars at the start of the weekend after the manufacturer’s mobile app suffered an outage – and dozens voiced their complaints on social media.
This wasn't wrongdoing either. First of all, the outage was an accident. Second of all, the cars could still be unlocked and driven through a local Bluetooth connection from the app, or with the key cards that are included free with every vehicle.
> If the software doesn't work, neither does your car, is this not things "John Deere" is known for?
But as I said above, the cars did work even when their software didn't.
> i dont drive an Ioniq so i wouldn't know the answer to your question.
My point was that on a Tesla, independent mechanics can do a lot of things but not everything, and I expect the same to be true about a Hyundai too.
If you say so.. personally, if I bought a used car, then found out features were removed i'd be pissed off.. then again, i am not a tesla apologist.
The "owner" is not the one removing the features.. TESLA IS.. so they can charge the new owner to restore the features.
FOr your turbocharger - Yes, if it was listed on the car's features, then removed after you bought it, it would be wrong to remove it. In fact this could be considered fraud.
Apple consumers and Tesla consumers have one very odd feature in common - ruthlessly defending things.
I dont get why they feel a "need" to do this. You seriously wrote "there is nothign wrong wiht removing features.." .. OMG.
If you enjoy having tesla do this to you, by all means continue to buy their products. I dont think their behaviour is fair and so i wont buy one.
My point was that when they disabled FSD in those cases, Tesla was the owner.
> FOr your turbocharger - Yes, if it was listed on the car's features, then removed after you bought it, it would be wrong to remove it. In fact this could be considered fraud.
Let's use a simpler example then: imagine my spare tire wore out and I didn't bother replacing it. Is it fraud if I sell my car without doing so?
> You seriously wrote "there is nothign wrong wiht removing features.." .. OMG.
You elided a critical part of what I said. Here's what my whole sentence was: "There's nothing wrong with removing features from a vehicle while you're the owner of it."
> Again, when was the last time this happened?
Tesla Remotely Disabled 80 Miles Of Range From Customer’s Car Demanding $4,500, Backtracks When The Web Finds Out BY STEPHEN RIVERS | POSTED ONJULY 27, 2022
Not sure the "when was the last time this happened" matters, it is a fairly regular thing with them. in this case it was July 27, 2022.. is that too old, too new for you?