Previously, Tesla owners simply had to go to their mobile apps to pay and unlock the extra range.
God, I hate this timeline.
I can’t even imagine being that big of a sucker.
Have you seen the pornos? Everyone gets laid with a Tesla. That alone is enough to get people to buy it.
The fact you can waste money like an idiot makes you very attractive to a certain sex.
You see the same thing with the “Supreme” crowd.
I’ve seen people be coy about antisemitism, but this is the first time I’ve seen someone “*wink wink* know what I mean?” about gender regarding teslas. Wild.
It makes me happy that Telsa did this because Tesla owners deserve this.
Maybe the Tesla owners who still somehow worship or apologize for Musk, but most of them don’t deserve this at all. A lot of Tesla drivers dislike Musk and regret their purchases at this point.
They were the best electric car to buy for a long time. I don’t fault anyone for buying them in the past. If anyone buys one now, with all the information and other options we have, then maybe they’d deserve it.
Elon Musk was no lesser of a piece of shit back then than he is now.
Five years ago the average person didn’t even know his name, or care. Honestly, even today the average person doesn’t know who he is. My mom barely does. But those people still buy cars, and some of them still buy electric cars.
Doing any amount of research about the cars would bring him up. These people are spending that much without doing any research?
I just popped open an incognito window and searched “best electric cars” and checked the top ten results: all of which mentioned Tesla, and only one of which mentioned Musk. And that mention was “say what you will about…,” which is fairly noncommittal about who he is or what he does. Most people aren’t scrolling Reddit or Twitter or especially Lemmy all the time; they Google a question, and when they get the answer they think “oh, I’ve heard of a Tesla, my buddy Jeff has one” and so they go ask Jeff whether he likes it or not.
Now, in 2024, his name is probably far more recognizable. But five years ago, especially before he bought Twitter? If they did see his name, it would probably have brought associations of rockets if anything.
Or look at the Google Trends results for his name. There’s a spike in May 2020 (when his baby with Grimes was born), a slight bump in 2021 when he was on SNL, and a huge spike in 2022 when he was forced to buy Twitter. Aside from that, the interest in Tesla has always been much higher than the interest in Musk, and people have been less curious about him than about Taylor Swift (for instance).
People just don’t care about the CEOs of most companies they buy stuff from.
You searched top 10 EVs. If you search Tesla specifically his name and face are all over the place.
If buying things from pieces of shit means we should get fucked by them, then all we would do is get fucked by pieces of shit.
Which honestly isn’t really any different than what we have now
As a, Tesla owner i agree. Musk is awful and Tesla are heading down the toilet. I’d never buy one agian.
They were the best electric car to buy for a long time.
Well, if you were buying a car with both your eyes wide shut.
What electric car was better than a Model X in 2015?
Renault Zoe, Kia Soul, BMW i3 and the list goes on. It just depends on what people expected of their cars.
None of those had close to the range of the Model X in 2015. Having less than 200mi range makes things difficult. Doubly so because the charging infrastructure wasn’t there (and barely is now). The infrastructure that did exist was put there by Tesla.
Though with proper charging infrastructure, having more than 400mi isn’t really necessary, and is almost silly.
I suppose that‘s quite location dependent. In Europe those cars sold really well, better than the Tesla’s in 2015. Maybe that‘s because the distances are shorter and there always was more non Tesla charging infrastructure!?
That would wholly depend on your qualifications of “better”. Plenty of cars existed that could get you to work and back. None of them were “go 0-60 in 2 seconds and kill all the children in the crosswalk automatically with autopilot!”. If that’s your qualification for “better” then fine, you win. But there were other EV’s that I thought were wholesale better after I looked at the early Tesla’s in person and just couldn’t get it out of my head of how ugly and dumb the car actually is.
Woah, how did you know my definition of better?
My wife needs to run on a ~70 mile trip about once a week to help their mom, often in freezing temperatures. An EV reasonably capable of that didn’t really exist outside of Tesla until the last few years.
Please stuff the “kill all the children in the crosswalk” nonsense. It doesn’t help anything. Until the Cybertruck, Tesla didn’t even offer anything like that.
a ~70 mile trip about once a week to help their mom, often in freezing temperatures.
Yes they did. Nissan Leaf. Chevy Spark. Fiat 500e… Many had sufficient range for the 70 miles you’re talking about.
Please stuff the “kill all the children in the crosswalk” nonsense.
No. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/09/tesla-self-driving-technology-safety-children. Stop defending Tesla.
We don’t deserve a country where companies can do this
Honestly it makes sense if it pushes the batteries out of the optimal (say 40-80%) charge level.
E.g. It wears out the battery faster and so makes them more prone to fail faster.
But if, and only if, you’re getting an extension on the warranty where Tesla is eating the cost of the replacements.
Pay to disable a battery lifetime saver mode??
Basically and then that only makes sense if the company’s going to foot the bill. Otherwise they could just make it very very clear that by using extended mode they’re reducing the lifetime of the battery and doing so at their own risk, yadda yadda.
If it’s, as the article suggests, to use what’s already there (larger capacity) then nah. That’s slimy just like BMW.
Pay to use an insecure 2FA via SMS.
it’s a car. it’s not an app. stop trying to apply subscriptions to everything. it’s wasteful to have unnecessary bloat for features people don’t want.
We, as an entire society, will have to stop paying for any of this shit to make that happen.
Maybe we should write an open letter to our senators and congressman and request that they draft legislation to make it illegal for hardware vendors to software lock hardware capabilities behind a paywall.
If I buy a $100,000 vehicle I shouldn’t have to pay 50 60 80 100 $200 a month to utilize the features that are built into the physical hardware of the vehicle I have purchased.
I can understand a fee for internet access or for premium radio subscriptions or something but not to use the heated seats and battery life that is physically built into the vehicle I purchased.
I agree with you but I am cynical that letters expressing what constituents want will be heard above the cash registers ringing from taking in lobbyists’ donations.
Reminder that the people most affected by this would be the kind of people who can afford a $100,000 vehicle.
And the stingiest people on the planet are the rich.
I don’t think it would be too crazy to rely on that to help draft pro consumer legislation.
Maybe we should write an open letter to our senators and congressman
This has never, and will never work.
I don’t know why you people keep suggesting it.
We need to actually elect people who care about us, but they’re usually the ones in third parties.
It works for good congressmen. I know Oregon’s congressmen have cited those letters and calls as reasons for their actions on policies.
Yeah there would have to be a total psychological shift for society to fight the marketing
Maybe we, as a society of workers, simply eat the rich? Or at least feed them to hounds
As productivity increases, artificial scarcity becomes necessary to maintain pre-existing levels of inequality.
How the fuck is it cheaper to software lock than to assemble a smaller battery? Like aren’t the batteries expensive? You just put in fewer cells for a smaller battery.
It’s possible that these vehicles are already built and Tesla needs a way to entice budget conscious buyers to clear out their inventory.
That is insane. If it costs the same to make, then lower range isn’t a reasonable area to pitch a lower cost vehicle. Wanting to lower the cost is fine. Putting in cheaper/smaller components to get there is fine. If you are using the same components and just software locking them to nickle and dime the users later, that’s anti-consumer and should not be tolerated. I can’t believe how people look at micro-transactions in games and think “wouldn’t this be cool with IRL stuff?”
No different than BMW having heated seats but if you want to use them you have to unlock with subscription plan. This way BMW makes one model and consumer has a choice with paymwnt. Intel CPUs have this too now. Company running servers can buy low performing chip, if they want to expand capability then intel sells them a license code to unlock more performance
They’re pushing the limits of this simulation to see how much bullshit we can tolerate. Turns out it’s a LOT.
If you pay the monthly subscription you can actually upgrade to the premium simulation.
I’m already paying a monthly sub! The devs made food and shelter basically mandatory, and then they charged for it! Biggest money grab ever, it’s disgusting.
That’s the basic subscription, the premium one is extra.
If people are ok with that then I guess it will stand, but it’s insane and anti-consumer in my book. A product costs what it costs, based on supply and demand, and if you can’t afford it you don’t buy it. This flimsy premise of “It lowers the bar to entry so users can upgrade later without having to replace!” will never come to fruition, and it’s too slippery of a slope to “put in a quarter to turn on your A/C”.
Oh I hate it. Like Toyota was offering remote car start but only if you subscribed online, otherwise your remote start button would get blocked by software. They walked it back because of consumer backlash, but not enough consumers complain. Meanwhile Ford pattented a drive home feature so if you miss a car payment it cripples your car, and further non payment the vehicle will drive itself back to the dealership
Collapsing dystopia into reality everyday
Toyota was offering remote car start but only if you subscribed online
That’s different - it relies on having an active cellular connection in the car and older cell towers (5G has improved this dramatically) could only handle a hundred or so active connections at once, so Toyota is absolutely paying a monthly fee to access the cell network. It makes sense to pass that on to the customers who wish to use the feature.
Those fees have gone down, since not only is 5G much cheaper per customer (for the cell network), everyone switching to 5G has taken the pressure off older wireless protocols so they’re almost never crowded anymore - so they can pretty much have as many cars connected as they want for near zero cost.
There is no need for access to a cell signal amd a server though, when you wamt to clicl start.from your living room… You can use the same fob tech as lock umlock your car like cars had prior. Or. you can buy after market remote start kits, Toyota waa juat frying to jump on the SaaS bandwagon
Imagine telling this to a time traveler from the 20th Century. “You have self-driving cars?” “Yeah, how else will they get back to the dealership when you miss a payment?” LOL fuck this timeline.
Pretty sure BMW ditched the subscription seats plan in the US due to pissing off car shoppers.
They may have, Toyota ditched their “subscribe monthly to remote start your car” after outrage
You’re giving more examples of things that aren’t ok. People should have full control over the software on the products they buy, if they did trying to software-lock anything wouldn’t work.
Oh I know, its absolute shit. My only point was Tesla doing it is not new, it’s how manufacturers have saved costs on making muliple product configurations.
Has anybody jail broken these things yet? It can’t be that hard to do, but I’m not tech savvy enough to know where to begin. There has to be a way to circumvent that lock and still be able to manually grab software updates that the user deems necessary (e.g. recalls). Would it be legal? Idk, if I buy a battery, I think I have the right to use the battery. If I buy a seat warmer, I think I have the right to use the seat warmer. If it’s part of the car I bought, I don’t see why I wouldn’t be allowed to use it. Otherwise, what the fuck does ownership even mean?
It can be unlocked, and AFAIK doing so is perfectly legal, but then your warranty is void. And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.
and AFAIK doing so is perfectly legal,
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2018-23241.pdf
cracking the DRM is authorized for consumers and shops for the purposes of “diagnosis, maintenance, or repair.” Not because you don’t like that they locked a feature.
but then your warranty is void
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act
They have to prove that what you changed/did to the car directly caused the damage you’re asking for a repair on. If you root the car (while technically illegal) and go in for a warranty repair on the accelerator pedal… They can’t deny the warranty.
And with a Tesla, you’re probably going to wish you had that warranty one day.
Only because they seem to make it impossible to get a hold of parts… Even their own shops have issues getting parts (multi-month wait times).
While I agree, I think that basic business model is pretty much ubiquitous across consumer goods.
Entry level product doesn’t cost much less to produce than their deluxe model, but they crank the profit margin to the roof for the deluxe version.
Yeah, these are software gated, but it’s essentially the same idea, just more infuriating because you already paid for the hardware that’s fully capable either way.
These are the guys that programmed their trucks’ front trunk to slam harder each time it detects something is in the way. The Smart left this place ages ago.
Then decrease the cost. Nerfing the battery benefits no consumer. Make maximum charge level a user controlled setting (up to 100%) and you’ve gained any benefits you’ve mentioned in this thread (faster charging due to lower capacity, less wear) without fucking the consumer over.
Wouldn’t lowering the total battery capacity mean that there is less wear on the battery because it charges less full? Surely they can’t cut off a physical part of the actual battery in sofware.
That’s correct, but you could do this just as easily by allowing the user to toggle a “battery endurance” charge that stops at 80-90%. My friends GM EV does this, she uses it during the work week as a full charge isn’t necessary for commuting needs.
It will already inform the user that charging above 80-90% is not for daily driving unless necessary, because of increased wear on the battery. They have always done that.
If that’s all it is, then simply charge less without making any changes.
Just spitballing, but a new part number means new variations to account for, new testing, new code, new hardware (balance/charge rate/cooling system), and new safety verification.
It’s cheaper to hire a lawyer and programmer to screw a customer than a team of engineers to appease government.
Reminds me of CD/DVD drives. Manufacturers build/test one model, and make 3 firmwares with software limits to market to low, middle, and high price users. All models make profit, but segmenting the market gets those who can pay a little more. The advanced users buy the cheapest drives and reflash them with the best firmware to restore function.
It is way cheaper. two assembly lines to assmebly 2 packs, separate work orders, specific assembly per model ordered ( so customet doesn’t pay for low end amd accidentally get highend or vice versa ), CAD and data management of two variations. It is why ModelT only came in black, is streamlines the whole process. You see much simpler examples in other induatries ie. that use stock material. it is cheaper to stock say 3 foot precut lengths and if product only needs 2 feet you chop it off at assembly and throw away the 1 foot scrap, rather than stocking and inventorying 2 foot and 3 foot stocks. Unless you invest in an expensive atock feeder that cuts the stock to length typed in, but that machine isn’t mobile so neesa to be placed at the exact location of assembly. And if you need it two places you need two stock machines, so then you start weighing the crude method vs precise
And don’t forget about the local lots where you’re keeping the manufactured cars. If you’ve ever purchased a new car, you know how annoying it is to get car with the color, engine, drivetrain, and cabin options you want.
If there are lots of variations of a vehicle platform, then dealers and stores will use often their space to stock a little of everything, or maybe a lot of the popular config and next to none of some other configs.
Less variation means dealers and stores are not shipping inventory around as much, and they have more stuff on hand for impulse purchases.
Making variants of things is expensive. You have to keep more inventory on hand for the manufacturing components and the final manufactured vehicles. You also have to spend time / energy / space in the plant for variants of things.
And for final point of sale, if you don’t have enough final inventory in one area, you’re forced to spend a shitload of money shipping inventory across country to fill gaps.
It’s a pretty common problem in product development. This is why Henry Ford was so revolutionary. Variation of components increases a ton of manufacturing and logistics costs.
That said, Telsa should’ve just sold the car at one fair price and not software locked this. This was shady AF.
Multiple variations means multiple factory configurations. Unless you’re selling a lot of cars it may not be worth the cost of having those production line changes.
If its cheaper to sell the same model, then the more expensive model is overpriced.
Holy shit he really did the sleep(30) trick
“Pay me more for the thing you already bought, or I will leave you stranded.” -Elon
Also, Broadcom with VMware products. Fuck those pricks.
One more thing that makes Tesla hacking a profitable skill.
Time to root your Tersler!
Root = sell
Do they hold any value?
During COVID and in the immediate years after their production started used Tesla held value well. Now, their values are dropping off a cliff. They’re depreciating on par with used luxury vehicles. I suspect that as people continue to have battery failures as the fleet ages, their prices will drop even more sharply. Be careful buying a used EV.
During COVID and in the immediate years after their production started used Tesla held value well.
This was the case for all vehicles at the time due to the supply chain shortages.
From what I have noticed possibly. However there is awareness being raised that you could buy used and shortly after get hit with a 20k battery repair bill.
They’re not at all designed to be sold used IMO. Rather they are designed to be recycled and resold through Tesla.
Based
I know jailbreak refers more to rooting Apple phones but I think it’s a better term than root as it points out you’re not in control of your own hardware. You “break out of jail” to gain (software) freedom.
I happily concede!
All this BS Tesla pulls, I’m surprised no one has published a Tesla “jailbreak” yet.
Hackers had figured out how to utilize bluetooth exploits at Pwn2ownp, but I’m pretty sure an event that public has led them to patch that particular vulnerability.
They have I’m pretty sure. It just is a immediate DMCA
Tesla Hackers Permanently Jailbreak Paywalled Features
A team of four hackers put an end to Tesla’s microtransaction-style features via a security chip exploit.
Letting rich people have access to the internet was a mistake. This shit is begging for regulation.
From the article…
Over the years, Tesla has periodically offered cheaper vehicles with shorter ranges, and rather than building a new vehicle with a smaller battery pack, the automaker has decided to instead use the same battery packs capable of more range and software-locked the range.
I can see business wise why they would want to do that, but P.R. and public perception wise, that’s one step forward, two steps back.
Another advantage is that it doesn’t force people to initially buy the higher version because “what if I end up needing it in the future” (like what Apple forces you to do with non-upgradable storage), even if you never do. It lets you buy the cheaper version for now, with the possibility to change your mind later.
It’s tricky. It’s not like BMW locking heated seats, a trivial feature, to nickel and dime the owner out of $300.
Reducing the battery capacity severely alters the value of the car possibly dropping it into the range of more budget conscious buyers.
There are benefits too. Less wear on the battery by not using its whole range, faster charging to “100%,” and more potential value when it comes time to sell should the buyer want to unlock the extra range.
Leave it to Tesla though to bungle the PR and completely lose the narrative.
It’s not like BMW locking heated seats, a trivial feature, to nickel and dime the owner out of $300.
Yes it is; it’s exactly that.
Reducing the battery capacity severely alters the value of the car possibly dropping it into the range of more budget conscious buyers.
Or they could not reduce it for the same production cost. No money is saved by tasking an employee to develop the battery nerf.
There are benefits too. Less wear on the battery by not using its whole range, faster charging to “100%,”
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
Let’s just say it’s 50% battery capacity and range for simplicity.
As each cell dies, it can use another cell to replace that one, it would effectively double the life span of the battery.
That’s… not how battery packs work
That’s actually how the majority of batter packs operate, they have a margin of cells to replace when they start undercurrenting. It’s not quite THAT simple, but it’s not also that difficult when every pack has electronic controllers in them now.
How do you think they were able to do this battery capacity limitation if you couldn’t do something like that…?
No. The packs aren’t like flash storage where they have spare blocks to use when one block wears out. Essentially switching in something that wasn’t used at all before.
The cells are all connected physically, being charged and drained. They do not connect and disconnect cells when wear occurs. They have software limitations on how far to charge and discharge (at what voltage and c rating). Yes, a larger pack will last longer if the charge/discharge cycles aren’t as “deep”. But no, they don’t have spare cells just to cover wear.
You realize you can also use a microcontroller to completely shutoff cells so they don’t get used until one dies yeah? There’s multiple tech in these packs now.
Some pieces of equipment allow you to put two batteries in it, so when one is depleted it automatically switches over to other one. Same kinda concept, just done at the cell level.
Think of a battery pack like a backpack, it’s lots of cells in series, to make larger batteries, you make the backpack larger and hookup more cells. A fancy controller can control which individual cells are active. Or even think multiple backpacks, now linked together.
It kinda sorta is, but not exactly.
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
You misunderstand, having a larger battery that is not used to full capacity makes it last longer. If you unplug at 80%, you need to have paid the extra price for the bigger battery, if the battery size was actual physical battery.
There is no “larger battery”. It’s an identical battery with different software limitations on the charge level.
No consumer benefits from artificial limitations being imposed on them like this. It exists solely to extract more money from consumers. The fact people are defending this blows my mind.
No consumer benefits from artificial limitations being imposed
No we agree on that, but when the market is so they can charge more, you still benefit getting the car cheaper with 80 Watt than an extra production line with a 70 watt battery. I agree it feels like cheating.
The fact people are defending this blows my mind.
I’m not defending the practice, but you are arguing from a false assumption that the company would choose yo sell at the discounted price, instead of only having the full version at full price in this kind of cases.
If the choice is between making a model with an actual smaller battery that cost the same to make, the customer is actually better off getting the bigger battery without being able to use it 100%
There is no such advantage in the BMW example. Which was kind of the point.
Or they could not reduce it for the same production cost. No money is saved by tasking an employee to develop the battery nerf.
Yes, but perhaps some money is saved by not having to manage multiple production lines for multiple battery capacities and also having to predict how many of each capacity is going to sell so you’re not stuck with cars nobody wants?
There are no benefits. You could simply unplug at 80%.
Right, after you just paid more for battery that you’ve decided not to use. The benefit is that it’s cheaper for the customer.
It’s only cheaper because they inflated the price from a limitation they created. There is absolutely no reason to limit the battery capacity in software in this manner other than to create an artificial divide to upsell people on the “”higher”” capacity.
It’s only cheaper because they inflated the price from a limitation they created.
TIL Tesla has a 100% monopoly over the electric vehicle market space.
Tesla is offering a wider variety of products at more diverse prices to try to better fit the needs of a larger portion of customers. They must have determined that it was cheaper overall to do it this way rather than physically rip the batteries out of the vehicles or they wouldn’t do it.
to create an artificial divide to upsell people on the “”higher”” capacity.
I mean, isn’t not offering a cheaper version at all already upselling? When the F-150 Lightning came out, people had a really hard time finding the standard range version because dealers didn’t want to sell a lower trim version of the car with lower commission.
They must have determined that it was cheaper overall to do it this way rather than physically rip the batteries out of the vehicles or they wouldn’t do it.
Or, you know, just keep the capacity the same and lower the price without imposing a battery nerf. It costs the same to make. The only reason the nerf exists is to extract money from consumers.
You are not required to purchase your vehicle from Tesla. I mean, we’re butting up against the primary tenets of capitalism here. I’m a socialist personally, but if there’s one thing that capitalism is supposed to do well in theory, it’s find market efficiencies. Tesla appears to have found one here. If anybody else could sell a non-software locked smaller-battery version of a similar vehicle for a lower price, people would buy that one instead.
If I own the car then either those are all my cells or someone else has abandoned their property in my car.
You don’t have to buy the car. People aren’t getting conned here… They would buy a more expensive version of the car with a higher range if they thought that would suit their needs.
You don’t have to buy the car.
If it’s a profitable decision then it has the potential to become the de facto standard, so simply not buying it isn’t enough.
The manufacturer using software to lock use of hardware in people’s own cars is an attack on ownership rights.
When it comes to things that are trivial to include but locked behind exorbitant paywalls (i.e. heated seats), I agree.
However, range/battery capacity is the primary price differentiator for EVs and also the primary cost for manufacturing. Finding a way to offer options that suit the needs of different people at varying prices just allows more people to enter the market.
to become the de facto standard
I feel like it might be nice to have a sliding scale of ranges available for people who have a sliding scale of needs. If I need a second car strictly for my 20 mile commute, it might be nice to have an option to pay less for 100 miles of range over 200. And I assume if a market is established for low-range EVs, manufacturers will compete with each other on how to deliver that for the best price. Perhaps if the market is large enough, Tesla will find it better to actually remove the extra batteries and put them in other cars.
If manufacturers made parts available for longer (or perhaps at all in some cases?) then 2nd-hand cars already make for a cheaper option.
I believe artificially limiting hardware is an unacceptable for a health society because proprietary software gives the developer power over their users. Even people with good intentions will be tempted to use that power at the user’s expense. A software update could suddenly make that 20 mil commute no longer possible unless you agree to pay more for some subscription, or accept a new terms of service where you agree to forced arbitration if you don’t want to lose access to even using your vehicle.
proprietary software gives the developer power over their users.
Agree here, but that’s a much larger issue than just this particular pricing structure.
You are 100% right it improves the lifespan, and when selling it, a battery in better condition makes the car worth more.
I think somehow some people misunderstand your post? Or they don’t get how it can be an advantage to have a bigger battery than you pay for?Mind you I don’t condone this business model, which to me feels like cheating.
It’s funny how frequently this business model is used in the digital space, but when it comes to physical hardware, people freak.
Like look at movies. Does anybody really think it costs substantially more to deliver the 4K version of a product over the HD version? Everything, Everywhere, All At Once is $12 on Blu-ray on Amazon. It’s $20 on 4k UHD.
The movie was mastered at 4k or higher, so why not just give you the UHD version with the Blu-ray version? The physical disc can’t cost more than a few cents to manufacture.
It’s because some people have decided they don’t need 4k and are happy to take a shittier version of the product for a lower price.
Don’t get me started how much people hate when content is included on the game disc locked behind a paywall yet somehow have less of an issue when there’s day 1 downloadable content also locked behind a paywall.
None of those other behaviors you describe are any less shitty. “Look, Tesla is doing the same shitty things as other corporations, they’re not so bad!” What a terrible argument.
For the record I pirate my content for the reasons you describe; I also don’t fuck with AAA games with day 1 DLC or paywalled content. Those get pirated or purchased on a heavy discount later.
Got any compelling argument as to why this software nerf should exist?
Sure:
It’s cheaper to manufacture and maintain a single version of a product. It’s cheaper to ship and store a single version of a product. It’s also easier to adapt to quickly changing market needs if you don’t need to spend six months spinning up a production line for a different version of a product.
Also, the existing market for low-range EVs might not be large enough to justify the expense of maintaining a separate line.
If there is competition in the space, it’s safe to assume that some portion of these savings are passed on to the customer to better edge out competitors over price.
If you want to be very charitable: wealthier people who can afford the full-range version are partially subsidizing the lower range (tighter margin) version for more budget-conscious consumers.
Edit: Especially when talking about the structural battery of the Model Y, it may help to understand how these packs are made: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozesI3OZEG0
The batteries themselves maintain the rigidity of the pack. If they removed some, they’d have to slide some dead weight in there. Also, once the packs are sealed, it’s impossible to remove a portion of the batteries without destroying the pack. These are designed features developed to reduce the overall weight and cost of manufacturing the pack.
If they can sell the same battery, just one has a software limitation, they can just forgo the limitation altogether and sell full battery capacity models at the reduced limited capacity price. The only reason this limitation exists is to juice customers and it’s bullshit. They are going out of their way to make a product worse that costs them exactly the same regardless of if the limitation is there or not. You cannot convince me that the software limitation they impose is anything but hostile to consumers.
I mean, they can just give the batteries away for free too, but most businesses have a vested interest in making money. In Tesla’s case, they also have an interest in paying back the massive investment it took to get the first car off the lot.
Saying “they can sell the same battery” is ignoring the fact that they would not be able to sell the limited capacity version of the battery if nobody was buying the full capacity version.
Perhaps typical people can more easily understand how a physical device might work. People probably understand gears and electricity more so than “software” (never even heard of source code or binaries).
That just means they could be selling the full range version cheaper. You’re getting the same hardware. It’s insane. Not “tricky”.
That just means they could be selling the full range version cheaper.
No. The additional price of the full-range version is partially subsidizing the lower priced version. People are willing to pay the current price for the longer range version, why would they lower the price?
The additional price of the full-range version is partially subsidizing the lower priced version.
That makes it even worse!
Why does that make it worse?
Because they are over charging people for the same hardware. Everyone is receiving the same product except for the fact that the cheaper one is hamstrung by an unnecessary software change. If it wasn’t for that all these cars would be identical. If they can sell it cheaper then do so. If they can’t don’t. If you want to have different price tiers make a version with more actual features. How are you not seeing this as a bad thing?
Because there is no inherent link between the cost of manufacturing a product and the price at which it’s sold.
If they can sell it cheaper then do so. If they can’t don’t.
So if Tesla develops new technology that allows them to produce cars cheaper, should they be required to lower the sale price of their vehicles?
Meanwhile my old car works fine and doesn’t need a subscription
Mine does, too. But I’m interested in moving to an EV for the sake of the environment and the planet. Not necessarily a Tesla, though.
From what I can tell they all have issues. Some more than others though
It’s important to do my part for the environment, even if it comes at a cost. I’m willing to deal with some initial issues since it’s a newer technology.
Conversions are a thing and they are looking more and more like a better option
deleted by creator
“Software-locked” is a weird way to say you need to install Linux to get it all working properly.
Then it just gets “driver locked” because of some weird hardware compatibility issue with linux and you have to spend hours debugging and searching for a fix before you can drive.
What an original, modern, accurate joke
Obviously not original, but unfortunately still accurate. I still have driver issues on many laptops running linux, especially with BT, touchpads and WiFi.
I remember when Intel tried to do this with their chips and people absolutely lost their shit.
Tesla’s popularity is on such a downtown, people won’t lose their shit but instead just go: “Ah, Musk is doing dumb shit again.”
Tech folks lost their shit. Joe Schmoe consumer arguably didn’t notice. They were just looking at the manufacturer sticker on their palm rest.
I believe Intel is on track to do it again.
I mean, they never stopped, did they? This is what chip binning is and for chips, it makes a lot of economical and even ecological sense (since a chip where the yield is such that only 6/8 cores function properly can be sold as a lower-tier product without issue instead of being scrapped, for example)
It’s also what made overclocking so popular.
Unless you and GP are referring to something else, of course. Wouldn’t put it past Intel to be nefarious 😅
I read an article recently that talked about enabling and disabling cores on the fly.
I think chip binning is perfectly reasonable.
Chip binning is great because it creates less waste, cheaper product and more profit for the manufacturer. Rare case of where everyone seem to win.
But there was this case where intel was designing chip that could be sold at lower price and more cores could be unlocked in software for a price.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/facepalm-of-the-day-intel-charges-customers-50-to-unlock-cpu-features/When IBM did this with mainframes it launched Amdahl into existence. His machines were basically the same machine except they were unharnessed.
Are you sure you’re not confusing this with the concept of “binning”, which is a pretty standard practice for chips?
You manufacture to a single spec, expecting there to be defects, then you identify the defective units, group them by their maximum usability and sell the “defective” units as lower end chips. IE, everything with 24-31 functional cores gets the “extra” cores disabled and shipped as a 24 core, everything with 16-23 functional cores gets shipped as a 16 core, etc
Absolute garbage.
I hope someone hacks this, makes it free & makes applying it as easy as changing a channel on your TV.
