Tesla downgrades second hand car
Discussion
REALIST123 said:
RobDickinson said:
Nothing to do with protecting EU market at all lol mkay. Ap works just fine elsewhere.
If they wanted to protect the market there are far better ways than simply banning a feature. They’re quite adept at that, as we all know.In this case it’s more about protecting its citizens.
Ideally, in the interim, the tech needs to be in a place that it will 'force' the car to drive well within its means and conditions before being released to the masses. The autopilot name itself is a mistake.
Gromm said:
Unless it’s a trend, I’d be inclined to write it off as a one off penny pinching/stupidity/mistake. .
Given Tesla are updating their warranty documents to start excluding changes as a result of a software update I think we can assume they’re trying to put themselves in stronger legal position to do whatever they like98elise said:
It's not the same. According to the article the the car was never meant to have autopilot as it was never paid for. It was a mistake in production.
Yeah, it's just like when a mistake in the factory means a car gets e.g. metallic blue when it meant to get solid white.Manufacturers often pop around to peoples' driveways and downgrade their colour to what it ought to have been. No big deal.
NDNDNDND said:
Let alone building the hardware for a feature into a car, and then forbidding you to use it through software...
I know autopilot is basically software, and using it is akin to purchasing a software licence, but to build a heated seat element into a seat and then not let you use it pretty offensive. Yes, I get why - efficiency of manufacture, and then leveraging the feature to get more money from the customer - but it is massively, transparently cynical.
The cost of putting the hardware in all the seats is paid for by people who buy the heated seats. It's not a zero cost option to manufacture. Features cost to incorporate into the car. Selling features is just business. I know autopilot is basically software, and using it is akin to purchasing a software licence, but to build a heated seat element into a seat and then not let you use it pretty offensive. Yes, I get why - efficiency of manufacture, and then leveraging the feature to get more money from the customer - but it is massively, transparently cynical.
It's like arguing that Microsoft office should be free because it's a download and costs Microsoft nothing at the point of sale.
jamei303 said:
98elise said:
It's not the same. According to the article the the car was never meant to have autopilot as it was never paid for. It was a mistake in production.
Yeah, it's just like when a mistake in the factory means a car gets e.g. metallic blue when it meant to get solid white.Manufacturers often pop around to peoples' driveways and downgrade their colour to what it ought to have been. No big deal.
I've said from the beginning I think tesla should have sucked this up, but they are not technically wrong in removing the feature.
98elise said:
Can you change paint over the air?
I've said from the beginning I think tesla should have sucked this up, but they are not technically wrong in removing the feature.
I don't think many are arguing they are technically wrong (I don't think many are legally qualified to really explore this on the grounds of US consumer law), I think most peoples objection is the morality of a company that had failed to remove a feature when they should resulting in someone buying the car in good faith and then retrospectively having the feature removed.I've said from the beginning I think tesla should have sucked this up, but they are not technically wrong in removing the feature.
Heres Johnny said:
98elise said:
Can you change paint over the air?
I've said from the beginning I think tesla should have sucked this up, but they are not technically wrong in removing the feature.
I don't think many are arguing they are technically wrong (I don't think many are legally qualified to really explore this on the grounds of US consumer law), I think most peoples objection is the morality of a company that had failed to remove a feature when they should resulting in someone buying the car in good faith and then retrospectively having the feature removed.I've said from the beginning I think tesla should have sucked this up, but they are not technically wrong in removing the feature.
From what I gather in this, the dealer is making a story of it he shouldn't. He got a car that had features that weren't advertised, but then "got lucky" and sold it as he got it.
The question here is: did Tesla advertise it as "NO AUTOPILOT" or was it just not mentioned on the cars' page? I know we are quick to defend the consumer, but if you order something and get more than you ordered it's also always nice to ask the supplier if it was the intention. I know most people won't do this though.
That said, a bit of goodwill from Tesla's side would come a long way. If they want to sell a car that has certain features removed, they should have removed them beforehand.
This is just being petty and imho unacceptable. Sounds like they really want to be the Apple of the car industry.
The question here is: did Tesla advertise it as "NO AUTOPILOT" or was it just not mentioned on the cars' page? I know we are quick to defend the consumer, but if you order something and get more than you ordered it's also always nice to ask the supplier if it was the intention. I know most people won't do this though.
That said, a bit of goodwill from Tesla's side would come a long way. If they want to sell a car that has certain features removed, they should have removed them beforehand.
This is just being petty and imho unacceptable. Sounds like they really want to be the Apple of the car industry.
ZesPak said:
From what I gather in this, the dealer is making a story of it he shouldn't. He got a car that had features that weren't advertised, but then "got lucky" and sold it as he got it.
The question here is: did Tesla advertise it as "NO AUTOPILOT" or was it just not mentioned on the cars' page? I know we are quick to defend the consumer, but if you order something and get more than you ordered it's also always nice to ask the supplier if it was the intention. I know most people won't do this though.
That said, a bit of goodwill from Tesla's side would come a long way. If they want to sell a car that has certain features removed, they should have removed them beforehand.
This is just being petty and imho unacceptable. Sounds like they really want to be the Apple of the car industry.
As far as I can tell (and based on several thousand cars in my database) Tesla are downgrading EAP as provided between 2017 and early 2019 to the current Autopilot as provided since then. So a car may well be advertised as "Autopilot" and you need to be a Tesla option code junky to unravel what that really means.The question here is: did Tesla advertise it as "NO AUTOPILOT" or was it just not mentioned on the cars' page? I know we are quick to defend the consumer, but if you order something and get more than you ordered it's also always nice to ask the supplier if it was the intention. I know most people won't do this though.
That said, a bit of goodwill from Tesla's side would come a long way. If they want to sell a car that has certain features removed, they should have removed them beforehand.
This is just being petty and imho unacceptable. Sounds like they really want to be the Apple of the car industry.
Say you have always understood a car from say 2018 that had Autopilot included summon, lane change, etc and after you buy it find out that its the cut down autopilot not the original autopilot which to give it its full title was Enhance Autopilot not that many ever called it that.
Gassing Station | Tesla | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff