Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Bans Customers From Using Autonomous Cars To Earn Money Ride-Sharing (arstechnica.com)
Late Wednesday, Tesla announced the Model X and Model S electric vehicles, boasting that they will come with the necessary hardware to drive completely autonomously at some point in the future. Naturally, one of the frequent questions that followed the event was: "Can I use my Tesla car as a Uber driver?" Well, Tesla was anticipating this question and even buried the answer on its website. From an ArsTechnica report: On Tesla's website, the section that describes the new "Full Self-Driving Capability" (A $3,000 option at the time of purchase, $4,000 after the fact) states "Please note also that using a self-driving Tesla for car sharing and ride hailing for friends and family is fine, but doing so for revenue purposes will only be permissible on the Tesla Network, details of which will be released next year."
If it's good enough to drive at all, it's good enough to be put to use for the purpose I bought it. That purpose might well be a revenue-earning ride sharing thing. Sounds like they're looking for a rent cut from your own purchased car.
Give us a lot of money, and you get no ownership of anything. Welcome to the World of Tomorrow!
Much as I detest Uber, this is just wrong, unless Tesla plans to adopt a lease-only model.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I supported Tesla's position on disintermediating the US car dealer structure so that Tesla can be allowed to sell cars directly to consumers. I didn't realize they would try abusing antitrust regs elsewhere for their own benefit. Companies are against anti-trust behavior except their own.
EULA's and auto driver cars will face some hard court cases. Even more so if they try to pull NDA shit in an criminal case (say in the case of an very bad auto accident) Now it would be cool for some CEO to face the some like the judge in My Cousin Vinny when they try use NDA's and EULA's to get out of discovery of the log's and source code of the auto drive software.
And let's say it's some small town where an auto driver car or truck BSOD's and took out a school bus full of kids. Where the local prosecutor is willing to push very hard in the case.
... if the clause was presented in such as way as to be considered part of a binding contract agreed to when I purchased the car, ...
Apparently you are not "purchasing" the car but licensing it. And this is happening more and more, like the sealed boxes in tractors preventing third party repairs. And it is a deal breaker for me.
"While the Tesla Motors co-founder spent more than ten years in the United States prior to becoming a citizen in 2002, it appears that he did so legally through various visa programs."
http://www.snopes.com/elon-mus...
This Sig does not Exist.
unlimited lease agreement so under landlord rules they are on the hook for all repair and insurance?
It can be in the EULA and still not be upheld (i.e "you agree to give us your firstborn child" etc) but this'll definitely get messy if Tesla doesn't back down. I'm interested to see how Uber and their partners (limo companies) respond to this, as Model S's are increasingly being used for UberBlack here in Colorado...
Time to jailbreak a Tesla.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually, if they intentionally retain the ability to remotely disable the car that would likely result in them being hauled in court even if they never used it.
For the record: Traffic violations, even if death occurs, are not considered criminal cases, unless reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter, or driving under the influence can be attributed to the accident.
Also, BSOD specifically refers to a kernel crash in Windows. I highly doubt Tesla or any car manufacturer is using a Windows derivative OS. I'd venture to bet that it's either a custom assembly language OS, or a form of a *nix system. In which case it'd be called Kernel panic.
... if the clause was presented in such as way as to be considered part of a binding contract agreed to when I purchased the car, ...
Apparently you are not "purchasing" the car but licensing it. And this is happening more and more, like the sealed boxes in tractors preventing third party repairs. And it is a deal breaker for me.
And I worry that this might be the future of Economy. Deplorable as Communism. Here's to the old times, when you were able to actually own something you purchased.
Frankly, right now I am considering restoring a used car over purchasing a new one. The cost will be more, but I think I will have a better car.
Using a Model S for Uber isn't prohibited. Only if you use it in autonomous mode with something like Uber, something that is only a future concept.
One reasonable explanation could be that Tesla doesn't want the liability.
I agree that (a) it's a worrying trend and (b) that it's deplorable. However, the economic system it more resembles is feudalism, not communism. The difference is that instead of the lords holding Real Property (i.e., land), they hold Imaginary Property (i.e. copyright).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I've already consciously chosen to drive older cars because of that. FYI, cars made in the 1990s (and maybe early 2000s) are still modern enough to have things like fuel injection and air bags, and can still be found in good enough condition to not need "restoring," but also generally weren't infected with enough DRM'd equipment to matter.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Customer -> Uber -> Driver -> Tesla -> Self-driving Software -> local, state, national laws about self-driving cars -> local, state, national laws about ride sharing -> Insurance companies... figuring out who to sue and who pays in case of an accident would be like legal Inception.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Snopes...yeah. Reliable source.
Actually Snopes is not a source at all. Much like Wikipedia it's a collection and summary of other sources.
But you knew that already and weren't just making some snide remark because you dislike a website that doesn't fit your version of the truth right?
Actually, thinking this over some more, Tesla is probably doing a CYA. After all, if a driver of a car causes damage due to an accident, it would normally be covered by his/her insurance. However, there is no precedent for insurance covering a car that is driverless. If the owner of the car rides (not drives) in the car while traveling, it's not an issue. But if he sends the car out to do a Uber or Lyft pickup of somebody and then there is an accident, who pays? The owner can disclaim liability, since he wasn't driving, and so can the insurance for the same reason. Would Tesla then be left holding the baby? For this reason, I believe they're probably going over the legal implications of driverless servicing of ride-sharing to see where the liabilities would lie
My VW runs on 100% biodiesel and is therefore closer to carbon-neutral than even the average electric vehicle. Keeping an old car in service also avoids the gigantic environmental cost of manufacturing a new one (which is even worse for modern EVs because lithium mining is a particularly nasty business).
So who's the assknob now? Pretty sure it's you, not me!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz