Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Temporarily Boosts Battery Capacity For Hurricane Irma (sfgate.com)
Slashdot reader mikeebbbd noticed this in the AP's Florida hurricane coverage: Electric car maker Tesla says it has temporarily increased the battery capacity of some of its cars to help drivers escaping Hurricane Irma. The electric car maker said the battery boost was applied to Model S and X cars in the Southeast. Some drivers only buy 60 or 70 kilowatt hours of battery capacity, but a software change will give them access to 75 kilowatt hours of battery life until Saturday. Depending on the model, that could let drivers travel about 40 more miles before they would need to recharge their cars.
Tesla said it made the change after a customer asked the company for help evacuating. The company said it's possible it will make similar changes in response to similar events in the future.
Tesla said it made the change after a customer asked the company for help evacuating. The company said it's possible it will make similar changes in response to similar events in the future.
Or maybe Tesla could just stop artificially crippling the batteries?
Obviously they can afford to ship those batteries at the lower price point, so adding in the artificial limit gouging the customers who buy the higher 'capacity' (really 'access') and screwing over the customers who have paid for the physical component but aren't allowed to use it.
On the other hand, you know Tesla had to realize there'd be some backlash coming if they made this move, and they did it anyway. So thank/fuck them.
I hate to say this... but maybe stall man was right
Even our bleeding edge can't help but to deplete our economy with suffocating micro transactions?
If anyone, you should know that there may well be a reason to "cripple" hardware despite its possible ability to function at higher spec. CPUs and graphics card anyone? What happens when an i7 CPU doesn't quite pass the QA tests? Switch off the cores that didn't pass and sell it as an i3. How many here have "unlocked" cores of cheap CPUs to turn it into a more powerful one? Do you think Intel does that because they enjoy making CPUs then sell them cheaply with some cores switched off for ... reasons? Or could it rather be that they switch off the cores because they fail inspection and can't be relied on, and it's still more interesting for Intel to sell it at a lower price than to throw it away?
I could imagine the same applies to other hardware.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Wait, so Tesla vehicles have the same batteries, and are just limited by software? Sounds like there's some opportunity there for jailbreaking them.
Hello,
With Lithium-Ion batteries, they last longer if you don't take them from 100% capacity to 0% capacity all the time. If instead you charge/discharge them from 80% to 40%, they last a lot longer.
I think it's likely that Tesla limits the batteries for lifetime purposes. And that this temporary software change is trading a little battery life, for, well, maybe saving the life of the Tesla car owner by getting him out of dodge?
-
On the other hand, if you have to flee an emergency that isn't quite so highly publicized, anyone with an EV will be on their own.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Okay. That's it. I'm done. Battery capacity is now software locked? Are you fucking kidding me?
Hi Tesla buyer! Here's a car with a 75kWh battery pack for $70,000. BUT! That price is for the base charge range of 60kWh. IF you want that last 15kWh, pay us even more money and well unlock it. Otherwise you'll be driving around a half charged car for the rest of its useful life.
The proof is the fact that they did it.
Not really--suppose they are not turning enough of a profit on the cheaper model to justify turning out the line. Then the cheaper model lets them increase economies of scale and also make the car available to more people (driving down the production cost of the more expensive model and possibly its cost if the external market forces are right), while the more expensive model pays enough to justify having the line and gives you an economy of scale to knock down the price of the cheap model a bit. If you sold just the expensive model to everyone it might then need to be at a higher price point than the cheaper model, which would make it unavailable to people who would otherwise be able to buy the cheap one and reduce the number of consumers able to purchase the car.
Or suppose that they could sell the cheap one with a cheaper battery at the same price point, but by including the bigger battery they make it cheaper to produce due to economies of scale. The customer is still getting the cheaper car but with it being easier to upgrade than it otherwise would be, and the company is producing it more inexpensively. Because of the easy upgrade, the customer actually has a benefit as compared to if the company had decided to sell it with 100% control of a smaller battery.
I understand the urge to hate companies that introduce unnecessary structural monopolies into the marketplace and are unnecessarily hostile to the right to repair or the right to fully control your own property--but just because a decision sets off our radar about that doesn't mean the decision is necessarily harmful to consumers.
Real lawyers write in C++
You car is carrying battery weight it does not need and cannot use simply so that when you absolutely need it, Tesla can sell it to you at an inflate price.
Brand loyalty aside, you will wake up at some point to realize how your being screwed there.
right to repair is fighting EULA's that ban 3rd parts from doing repairs.
Ever see an iPod or iPhone refuse to boot because of low battery? Same deal, software limited to prevent warranty failures.
Conspiracy minded techies know that apple firmware enables covert remote pinging beneath the e911 location tracking layer... fedz can track u for days with a "dead" phone battery... sheriffs need the phone to be "on" for e911...
So it's a kind of Day-One DLC?
I have a question. Do some of the people buying the lower capacity battery actually receive a lower capacity battery that exactly meets what they are paying for? If that is true then I presume, for reasons of mass manufacture and inventory availability, some people paying for the lower capacity battery receive a higher capacity battery but they cannot access the entire capacity.
Better known as 318230.
Did they do it so the batteries don't drop from 75kw capacity to 60kw capacity over the life of the battery? 60kw like it says on the label the whole time.
I think people would be annoyed if their batteries "failed" like that after a while. And yes people should have the right to jailbreak their property. Because if you don't own it, it owns you.
I find it convenient to be all things to all people. Less pain, what's not to gain? :D
You mean people actually controlling the devices they own and deciding for themselves how that device should be maintained? Why that's completely unknown territory for automobiles, computer software, and so many other things. Oh, the horror of freeing oneself from corporate control.
Digital Citizen
If Apple or Sony did something like this with the iPhone or PS4, the comment sections would filled with people screaming boycott.
But when Tesla did this, yay, what a good guy!
Yep, this is the rampant fanboism in /. This is basically no different from mindless left/right, R/D, creationist religious nut that /.ers like to look down upon.
How do you know they don't? How do you know that the only difference between a 64GB and 128GB iPhone isn't that they blow a fuse at the factory to restrict the memory when they sell the 64GB model, but it has the exact same storage hardware? And if they do this, do you care? You paid less for the 64GB phone than the 128GB phone.
Some paid less, in that scenario, but all dollars were equally worthless until they were spent. Both the buyer and the seller can think they're holding the upper hand. Likewise, they may walk away only to see their efforts rewarded with a hand full of sand. While it serves everyone right for living like insects feeding on a corpse, it serves us better to expect an entire different life awaiting those that manage to stay both alive and inspired while ripping through masses of decay.
Software limitations purely for the purpose of profit are evil. No if's, and's or butts.
The entire point of capitalism is to convince the manufacturer to provide the most product for the cheapest price.
Here we have a situation where the company can sell a better product for the same price but instead chooses to screw their customers. I understand the concept of variable pricing, the general idea is to convince each consumer to pay the most they are willing to pay for the same product.
But you are supposed to do this via overpriced addons, coupons, marketing and sales. Basically, you REWARD the customer, rather than punish them. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
What Tesla is doing is Mercantlism. Using a government provided monopoly (you can't legally replace the limiting software) to charge more money.
This is disgusting and Tesla should not get any credit at all for temporarily being non-disgusting during a crisis. Especially when they return to the old system after the crisis is over.
I used to think Tesla was getting screwed by Texas and other states. Now I think they deserve it.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Samsung tried something similar with the Galaxy Note 7, but that caused a hurricane.
Table-ized A.I.
There was third-party downloadable firmware which would unlock some features which Canon artificially restricted to their more expensive cameras. Most people thought that was a dick move on Canon's part... but somehow Elon Musk gets a pass.
#DeleteChrome
Many companies make a thing on a single assembly line because it's less expensive then running two or more lines, and then artificially limit its capabilities when a version of it is sold as a lower-end model.
That's absolutely fine provided that anyone who purchases their product has the legal right to enable the full functionality themselves assuming that they can figure out how to do that. This is what ultimately limits this sort of behaviour. Unfortunately, all the modern DRM laws have killed this balance by making it illegal in many countries to develop and/or share methods to turn on blocked functionality.
I wouldn't want my car being accessed remotely like this. Same reasoning as when Samsung borked their update. God forbid Tesla bricks your car.
Agreed. Tesla cars have just gone from desired items to never buy. I had profound respect for that company, and it's gone in a flash. I will not buy from a company that charges more for access to hardware I've already purchased, nor will I support the "Windows 10" mentality of the manufacturer being able to push out any changes they want to something I own. I had even considered buying some of Tesla's latest issue of bonds simply to support the company. I'm glad this came up now.
It's no wonder all the manufacturers and governments have hard ons for electric cars. It has nothing to do with the environment, they haven't cared about that past providing lip service any time in the last century. It's because of the level of control they afford.
Because several people have dismantled the phones and looked at the internal components. The smaller capacity models contain lower capacity (or in some cases less) flash chips, so apple at least has intentionally manufactured them at a lower capacity using different (cheaper) components to do so.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
http://jalopnik.com/teslas-hur...
"Earlier this week, Tesla remotely upgraded select Florida Tesla ownersâ(TM) cars to expand their mileage capacity in an effort to ease and assist with Hurricane Irma evacuation efforts. The move was praiseworthy and appropriate, but at the root of the gesture lies a terrifying prospect of our automotive future..."
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I absolutely understand the feeling, the gut reaction, that somehow that just isn't fair.
> If Tesla can sell the same hardware at different price points and still make a profit then the higher price point is simply profiteering.
"And still make a profit", you say. Newsflash - Tesla is not making a profit. They lose money on every car.
So our gut reaction at first of "that doesn't seem right" tells us we should look into it more. Looking into it, we find the situation is more complex than our initial, visceral first impression accounted for.
That seems to be a common thing. Often, our gut, based on first impressions, tells us one thing, but upon further analysis we find out that our first idea would be counter-productive. For example, commenting on the Equifax story, several commentors immediately said "automatically levy huge fines against any company that bgets hacked, and throw the management in prison. That'll fix it." At a guy level that feels good. Actual historical information shows us that what that does is create a huge incentive to hide any breaches. To make things safer, high penalities for accidents don't work - defining and enforcing safety standards BEFORE something bad happens is what works. Penalize companies and people for being reckless, those who fail to follow preventative safety practices - whether or not they get lucky and there is no major damage.
In the case of price differentiation, such as here, what it boils down to is that a few people who want the luxury of a little bit extra choose to pay a lot for it, therefore subsidizing the lower cost for the standard model most people get. It reduces the cost paid by the average buyer.
This happens also on regular petrol cars. The 1400 cc 16 valves turbocharged petrol engine made by Fiat is available in three versions: 120 HP, 145 HP and 170 HP. You can reprogram the ECU from a 120 HP to a 175 HP version quite easily and It will works for some time. But transmission, brakes, air manifold and exhaust are different. This is the official FIat upgrade kit So you can for a moment overboost the petrol engine power, but without changing other components you'' get a coffin on four wheels. I suppose that the power capacity difference could be linked to some different parts for the car that coul do the work ok for some times but can't be span the same lifetime if used on higher power.
So from what I know, you're basically paying $8000 to remove a software cap on your battery.
If this is actually true and not a Lie, this raises a lot of questions that I've yet to see convincing arguments of.
1. "The buyer knows exactly what they're getting into."
Does this not occur to the buyer that they could've gotten a 75kwh for $8000 less than the regular version? Does it not occur to the buyer why it costs that much to remove a software cap? There's probably server costs involved but it can't possibly cost that much to use some of that bandwidth.
2. "It increases the battery life cycle." Shouldnt that be up to the driver to determine how much of their battery they want charged? Couldn't they have added an app with a warning saying that if they lift the cap on their battery it could decrease the lifespan and as such Tesla is not liable for It? I get that lawsuits are annoying, but this is hardly a better way to deal with legal snafus.
3. "Other companies are doing it." That doesn't make it any better at all. If anything it makes Tesla look no better.
This really could've been avoided if Tesla didn't offer this kind of deal at all. I get Musk has big plans for humanity, but it should not excuse him from continuing the trend of questionable business models. Or maybe he's not actually that good with car business models and this is just an attempt to skirt the wave of bankruptcy.
Given that the 'crippled' model will last longer due to less depth in the charge cycle, this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Another thing to consider..
If they actually engineered smaller batteries equal to the downgrade they would have to design and manufacture, stock and install both which would drive up cost.
Or, assuming they should just put in less cells, the cheaper version would weigh slightly less and offer better 0-100 acceleration (assuming this wasn't limited as well)
It's probably mostly about simplifying the production line and part catalog.
Wasn't there an article here on /. about how someone began programming their Tesla...and Tesla rolled the sw back, and locked him out ?
Indeed "Dumping" is a practice that does exactly that. The point is if this move disenfranchises competitors or whether their costs here are taken from another line where they have monopoly power to outspend competitors.
Without that, dumping may be fine.
See Corn Subsidies in the USA.
There are always pros and cons of this. Enterprise hardware does this as well. Licensing/purchases is where a lot of manufactures make or recoup their money. You have two options, buy hardware that is maxed out but leaves no room for growth, or buy hardware that is constrained by licensing/software. In the second case, you can buy an new license and get access to more hardware/performance without having to physically change anything (no rip and replacement, no labor, etc). That makes for a nice upgrade when you finally have the money or need to upgrade, but yes you have hardware that is 'idle' until you license it.
The other side is that you have full access to the hardware, but when you want more life you now have to buy hardware or take it in for labor to modify the hardware to have the new capacity you want. That requires cost on top of the new hardware, as well as your time when you won't have it. Certainly people may feel 'ripped off' that they bought hardware that they don't have full access to, but it's really dependent on your view point, and if one makes you grumpy, don't support that style/manufacturer.
I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
I'm surprised at the people upset about Tesla charging to unlock more of the battery's potential. Differential pricing (or whatever you prefer to call it) is as old as commerce. Think about the good old days of coupon clipping: The supermarkets are betting that people with plenty of money won't bother (and will pay a higher price), where as people with more time and less money will clip coupons (and pay less). The goal is to maximize your overall profit by selling the same product at different price points.
This also helps reduce your costs. You may even lose money on the lower prices, but the increased volume keeps your production costs lower (on a per-unit basis).
Finally: Note that this is done in the software world all the time. How many products out there use license keys? License keys restrict the functionality of the software. Theoretically, every customer could have full access to all functions, but the software seller blocks functionality for people who pay less. People who pay more, get more functionality. The software remains the same, regardless.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
This gives 'range anxiety' a complete new flavour and intensity.
I really hope there is an Easter egg in the Tesla software that does a "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that", and then locks the doors menacingly...
Its nice that Tesla is doing this, but it makes my skin crawl knowing the amount of control that manufacturers (Teslas not the only one) are gaining over other peoples property. What is to stop a hacker infiltrating a manufacturers systems and issuing an update that bricks vehicles/heaters/coffee makers/etc? Governments deciding they want to track vehicles and forcing manufacturers to secretly install an "update" that uploads the device GPS location to a government server? Manufacturers deciding (or getting bought out by an unscrupulous group) that owners need to pay a "maintenance fee" or your devices get their functions scaled back or outright disabled. At a bare minimum the owner should be able to disable updates, or have to hit a hardwired button in order for an update to be loaded. I would say legislation to prevent this kind of behavior as well but as we've seen (using OnStar to spy on people, GPS tracking vehicles, massive internet spying, etc) government is at the forefront of abuse of networks.
Fuck Tesla. Never will I buy a piece of shit from Tesla.
I'd be pissed if I found out that Tesla (or any other manufacturer) had been holding back stuff from me the owner that MY (i.e. NOT their) car can otherwise already do,
but I'd be seriously pissed enough to go to court if they ever remotely turned it off again without my express permission.
Its all hypothetical though because I'd never buy a Tesla for this and many other reasons like it.
Tesla's ability to remotely adjust battery capacity (and other car parameters) scares me. Even though Tesla is a force for goodness and non-evilness in today's world, what happens when the company is confronted with a government request to boost capacity to zero for undesirable people? Or when the company finds that artificially decreasing capacity over time leads to greater corporate profits? Or when someone cracks the security code and starts blackmailing car owners.
While I'd love to buy an electric car, I'd never buy a Tesla - I think they're overpriced and feel vaguely douchebaggy (I'm more of a Chevy Volt / Nissan Leaf kinda guy).
Nevertheless, I'm puzzled by the hate on for Tesla in this thread. It's a free market. If you don't like Tesla's sales / marketing tactics don't buy one. No one is forcing you to buy a Tesla.
Another good reason to never buy a Tesla.
I know this is common practice for a lot of companies, but it's still a horrible practice and I avoid supporting it whenever possible.
You've just officially declared that Tesla controls how you use your own car, when you can charger it, and for how long. But people are trying say that this is someone a GOOD THING, that Tesla was 'kind enough' to allow the 'peasants' to charger their car to their specs. Not that I'm ignore that the ONLY people that buy Tesla are morons with too much money anyway. But the very fact that people are just happy about this revelation shows how stupid a lot of them are.
Also: you think gasoline shortages are bad... wait until morons start BLOWING THE GRID trying to fast charger their electric cars every time there's a hurricane. So yeah, go post that capacity Tesla. Do your best to show people the real problems with your technology.
No, they're not the same engine. They're the same line, and probably the same block casting, but they have different cams, cranks, con rods, pistons and valve springs. Likely they have different valve seats and valves, as well as different machining on the block and different accessories. Different intake manifolds, and different sensors, though those are starting to merge. 50 years ago the engine lines made exactly one engine, but that hasn't been since the early 70s. Hell, for an extreme example, the 427 Chevy and the 425 caddy had the same block, but different displacement and firing sequence. Clearly not the "same engine" even they were from the same casting and same engine line.
No one ever complained about the $500 laptop at Best Buy being identical to the $1600 enterprise one except for different BIOS locks. I have first hand knowledge. I've witnessed someone with the correct OEM tool flash a $500 pc into a $1500 pc.
It was no secret since the MOBOs were the same part number. The magic was in which Rom the service tech loaded.
First sale doctrine means you can do what you wish with something you purchase.
It may well do that but the problem is very few people have the time or money to fight the small army of lawyers that a large corporation will fling at you to make you stop doing it because they can probably make some sort of dodgy argument under the DMCA. If they can do that then it won't matter whether it was wrong because the price of justice will be more than you can afford.
note to self: don't commit any crimes while driving a tesla.