Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Ends Online Sales of $35,000 Model 3 (nytimes.com)

Tesla is changing up its retail strategy yet again, this time deciding to end online sales of the long-awaited $35,000 version of its Model 3 sedan (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The move comes just over a month after the company announced that the $35,000 version was finally coming to market. The New York Times reports: In a blog post late Thursday, Tesla said customers wanting the $35,000 version of the Model 3 would have to make the purchase by phone or in person at one of its stores. The cheapest Model 3s ordered online will now include Tesla's Autopilot driver-assistance system and a longer battery range, features that increase the price to $39,500. The blog post said Tesla was making the changes to "simplify vehicle choices and to make Autopilot more affordable." Such a configuration would previously have cost $40,500, it said.

A Tesla spokesman said the change would allow the company to produce one version of the Model 3 and use software to limit the battery range and turn off features such as heated seats for customers who wanted the $35,000 model. A longer range and additional features will be switched on in the $39,500 car, known as the Standard Plus model. Previously, Tesla planned to put a smaller battery pack in the basic model and a larger one in the Standard Plus, the spokesman said. Tesla's announcement also said it would begin leasing the Model 3, but would not offer customers the option to buy the cars after their leases expired, a departure from the typical industry practice and its own policy on other models. Tesla said it aimed to upgrade Model 3s returned after a lease to allow them to drive themselves, with no human at the wheel, and be deployed in a driverless taxi fleet. The company acknowledged that the technology for driverless taxis was still in development and would need to be approved by safety regulators before such a business could begin.

147 comments

  1. I am altering the deal by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pray I don't alter it any further.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re: I am altering the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no understanding. Tesla will make up margin with volume, when the $35,000 Teslas are a reality.

      *smokes a shitton of pot*

      funding is totally secured bro

    2. Re:I am altering the deal by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 0

      This is not "altering the deal", it is just an attempt at upselling. And it isn't a galactic evil lord doing the talking, it just a car salesman. No need to make it overly dramatic, there is a bunch of real electric vehicles to choose from already.

    3. Re:I am altering the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They happened to lower the cost of the configuration I wanted by $1000.
      That's a sweet deal to me.

    4. Re: I am altering the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, Rei.

      Did you buy it at the EyjafjallajÃkull dealership?

    5. Re:I am altering the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am altering the deal

      Pray I don't alter it any further.

      I am Arting the Deal.
      Pray I don't art my way to President.

    6. Re:I am altering the deal by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's probably because the $35k model was losing them money, and losing Panasonic money on the batteries. They technically fulfilled Musk's promise, they got the compliance $35k version out, so now they can make it really hard to buy and just sell the profitable models.

      Note also that Autopilot isn't an option any more, it's mandatory. They fit the hardware to every car and then used to charge you to turn it on, but it looks like now they just added $2000 to the price and made it standard.

      The most annoying part is that if you want heated seats, pretty essential in many places, it's $2500 extra now. Heated seats are standard on most of the competition.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:I am altering the deal by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You can only alter a deal if you've had a deal in the first place. This is withdrawing the offer for a deal. No need go crying to your deity about that.

    8. Re: I am altering the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you cannot not suck Musk dick.

    9. Re:I am altering the deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most annoying part is they ALL come with heated seats and they charge you $2500 to flip a bit in the cars configuration file to enable them. There is literally no physical difference between the base and the plus.

    10. Re:I am altering the deal by ejasons · · Score: 1

      The most annoying part is they ALL come with heated seats and they charge you $2500 to flip a bit in the cars configuration file to enable them.

      I know that most of the Tesla options are difficult or impossible to unlock without paying.

      However, it seems somewhat likely that one could just rewire the heated seats separately...

  2. Late again... but this time only 20 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/12/tesla-35k-model-3-pulled-from-online-store/

  3. Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So - the car still COSTS Tesla the same amount of money to make, they will just sell it to you for cheaper if you let them set a few bits in the firmware - thereby cutting their own margins. And now you have to buy in person at the stores they closed - then re-opened - so that consumers haven't a clue going on? C'mon Tesla, just come out and say it - you cannot sell a $35,000 car, and you have no intention to do so, and you're just playing games to get people to "move up" to the $40K version.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      While you are probably right, when I see that features are just turned off in software I tend think the whole thing is made for under 35k and it is just pure profit taking to enable those features. So...

      a) for 35k why would I pay for something I won't use? leave it out on the assembly line and it should be 30k
      b) for 40k why would I pay for something that is technically there for 35k?

    2. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1, Informative

      As far as the battery is concerned, the vehicle may cost Tesla the same to build, but 1) building a physically smaller version might not be appreciably cheaper overall for Tesla, and 2) bigger margins in the battery might lower the rate of warranty repairs, which would definitely cost Tesla money. In any case, the bigger battery was already more cost-efficient, since it offered something like 10% of extra range for 5% of extra price or something.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      C'mon Tesla, just come out and say it - you cannot sell a $35,000 car, and you have no intention to do so, and you're just playing games to get people to "move up" to the $40K version.

      You should consider the fact that Mr. Musk is no longer at the helm of the company. I'm betting this is a cynical move by the board of directors to increase profits. Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    4. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leave it out on the assembly line and it should be 30k

      Because they have a large inventory. Those vehicles don't really sell that well. This is a way to move some of that inventory by flipping some bits in software.

    5. Re: Software to limit functionality? by switchfeet · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with slashdot. Lol. They are a business last time I checked.

    6. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure sure Musk is sooooo above all the nasty money he has billions of! He is an angelic techno philanthropist! Spending years of his life and OTHER PEOPLES MONEY so he can share his cool tech toys with unbathed nerds.

      Riiiiiight!

    7. Re:Software to limit functionality? by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The incremental hardware cost is nothing compared to the R&D costs that they have to recoup with every sale. This is something common across the industry from Boeing to Intel. It decreases production costs overall.

    8. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla exists so that when Musk calls somebody a pedo, people hear about it.

      If they were a business, they would be doing a lot of things differently.

    9. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 2

      Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,

      Uh huh. This is the guy who was fired from Paypal (circa 2000) because he actually wanted to abandon their existing Linux infrastructure and migrate to Windows servers...

    10. Re:Software to limit functionality? by NFN_NLN · · Score: 1

      > This is something common across the industry from Boeing to Intel.

      But not true of Chinese manufacturers that simply rip-off R&D.

    11. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He had probably heard rumours about systemd...

    12. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's intelligent inventory management and also avoiding the need for separate production lines.

      Lots of things are done this way now.

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:Software to limit functionality? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So - the car still COSTS Tesla the same amount of money to make

      No. The retail price and the package is not related to the cost 1:1. You're not paying Tesla for labour and materials.
      Actually it's quite the opposite. The car will cost less to make due to less downtime / retooling for a different model which has the effect of increasing their margins. This is something that is done by most companies which offer a wide product selection where something is controllable by firmware.

    14. Re:Software to limit functionality? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Musk didn't care about the money as much as he cared about the technology getting used. New overlord, new priorities,

      Uh huh. This is the guy who was fired from Paypal (circa 2000) because he actually wanted to abandon their existing Linux infrastructure and migrate to Windows servers...

      Paypal didn't run on Linux infrastructure. But close.

    15. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be why Apple cannot make iphones in the USA. All that unripped-off "research".

    16. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      So - the car still COSTS Tesla the same amount of money to make

      No. The retail price and the package is not related to the cost 1:1. You're not paying Tesla for labour and materials. Actually it's quite the opposite. The car will cost less to make due to less downtime / retooling for a different model which has the effect of increasing their margins. This is something that is done by most companies which offer a wide product selection where something is controllable by firmware.

      Example, please? I work in high-volume consumer electronics and I've never seen this done. It could be done - software "disable" features from a higher-end product, and sell at a lower cost. But I've never seen it done, because if you're going to sell in any appreciable volume, the costs "wasted" in production vastly outweigh the supposed savings in tooling/NRE. Especially when the major components (for a car, that would be the engines, interior, body, suspension, etc) are not affected at all.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Um, hate to break it to you, but Musk is still the CEO of the company; he's still at the helm. He is not the chairman, but the chairman doesn't run the company - the chairman heads the board which is responsible for ensuring the CxOs and VPs are managing the company correctly. The directors are the captains; the VPs are the colonels, the CxOs are the generals - and the board are the politicians back home. They do not control the company, they hire and manage others to do that.

      As far as profits, how can it be more profitable to give away extra batteries? That is literally what is happening here. You buy the $40K model 3, you get a big battery you can use. You pay $5000 less, you get the exact same battery - but it's software crippled so you cannot use it all. I guess giving away hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of batteries makes sense if you're going to build a few thousand cars; if you're going to do the volume that Musk has been talking about (hundreds of thousands a year), that is literally tens of millions of dollars just going away for free.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    18. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Battery packs are connectors, cells, and steel. The cost of the steel will be the same - it bolts in the same way. There are less connectors (wiring) and fewer cells. It should scale about linearly. I guess if you want to give away another few thousand dollars per car, you could - but no one does that, because it doesn't make fiscal sense if you're selling more than a few thousand a year. I believe it's just Tesla trying to push people to pay an extra $4000+ to get the "upgrade" car, and having Yet Another Reason to not launch the $35K version (that was due in, what, 2017?)

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    19. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      Hmmm, Ford, GM, Fiat, Toyota, Honda - they all use a single production line per model. They manage entirely different powerplants and transmission combinations (not to mention even body styles, like convertibles and hard tops, and of course different interior packages), not just a battery pack with different internals (which would be akin to a gas tank with the same external dimensions and connections and mounting points, but a different internal capacity). Honda doesn't sell you a V6 and disable a pair of cylinders and call it a V4, with a software upgrade to get a full V6. Because it makes no sense.

      In fact, most things are NOT done that way. Last few times I've been to Flextronics and Compal, a single model of laptop was built on a single production line - but they would build all the different configurations of laptops on that same line (which is pretty trivial to manage with modern production management software and dynamic SOPs and binning per station).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    20. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      What? Really? In this case, we're talking about software changes (no more than 1 man year to do, and that's being generous) or a change in design of a battery pack (perhaps 3 man years, again being hugely generous). Well under $500,000 in NRE costs. But you're probably spending at least $500 - if not $1000 - per "throttled" battery. If you're going to sell more than a few thousand cars, you're money ahead to make the smaller battery.

      As far as Boeing, they do not build only 737-900s and "throttle" the software so it's a 737-500. They build the different models on the same production line, and equip them as ordered - model version, interior configuration, livery, etc.

      Intel builds all their processors on the same die line, but then check each and every CPU to see what speed it can reliably run at. They don't purposefully take a 3.8 GHz processor and throttle it down to 3.2 GHz so they can sell it for less money. They sell the 3.8 GHz unit as a 3.8 GHz unit. and the one that runs at 3.2 GHz reliably is sold as a 3.2 GHz processor.

      And note that pretty much all other car companies build multiple versions - including different powerplants, transmissions, rear ends, suspensions, body styles (even as radical as convertible and hardtop) all on the same production line. They change the build of each vehicle based upon what was ordered. Ford doesn't have 85 F150 production lines; Honda doesn't have 32 Accord production lines. They build one production line, make all variants on that line - and will add another production line when they hit capacity.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are mostly correct until...

      Intel builds all their processors on the same die line, but then check each and every CPU to see what speed it can reliably run at. They don't purposefully take a 3.8 GHz processor and throttle it down to 3.2 GHz so they can sell it for less money. They sell the 3.8 GHz unit as a 3.8 GHz unit. and the one that runs at 3.2 GHz reliably is sold as a 3.2 GHz processor.

      Intel only makes 3.8ghz processors. They have defects, all cpu wafers have defects. So they test the defects at 3.2ghz and it works. They sell a 3.8ghz processor for 3.2ghz prices. Waste just became profit. CPUs are unique snowflakes, since you cannot get "more" out of a bad proc.

    22. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The software to limit range is a feature.
      Think of it this way, if you're not using the full capacity of the battery, the battery life will be significantly extended.

    23. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      you cannot sell a $35,000 car

      That begs the question... wouldn't $35,000 three years ago be pretty fucking close to $40,000 in "2019 Dollars??" You can point to low interest rates all you like but food prices - an accurate indicator of true inflation - have certainly increased by at least that much in three years.

    24. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should consider that you don't know what you are talking about, or are deliberately being wrong and spreading false information.

      He is still very much CEO, and still very much a massive micromanager. He is no longer Chairman, but that doesn't matter because the board is still stacked with his personal picks that aren't going to argue with him unless things get really dire. Sure, they've got a bit more power now that he isn't chairman as well, but if that power is never used, then it may as well not exist.

      This move is because it turns out that it's pretty hard to make a $35k electric car that people want to buy, and still make any margin on it. They set an aggressive goal, and this is them not meeting that goal.

    25. Re:Software to limit functionality? by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      Um, hate to break it to you, but Musk is still the CEO of the company; he's still at the helm. He is not the chairman, but the chairman doesn't run the company - the chairman heads the board which is responsible for ensuring the CxOs and VPs are managing the company correctly.

      Good so far, except that boards often won't interfere at a level as low as VP - the CEO/President is in charge of day-to-day operations, including hiring and firing of underlings like VPs..

      The directors are the captains; the VPs are the colonels, the CxOs are the generals - and the board are the politicians back home.

      This makes no sense, the directors are the board. The board defines goals for the company, and possibly specifics for C-level executives. The CEO/President decides how to achieve those goals (developing strategies and high-level plans), and the VPs (and everyone below them) does the actual work needed to implement the CEO's strategies and plans.

      They do not control the company, they hire and manage others to do that.

      As far as profits, how can it be more profitable to give away extra batteries? That is literally what is happening here. You buy the $40K model 3, you get a big battery you can use. You pay $5000 less, you get the exact same battery - but it's software crippled so you cannot use it all. I guess giving away hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of batteries makes sense if you're going to build a few thousand cars; if you're going to do the volume that Musk has been talking about (hundreds of thousands a year), that is literally tens of millions of dollars just going away for free.

      I'd assume that given the present sales ratio between basic and longer-range models, it's better for Tesla to manufacture just the one battery pack for now. There are complications aside from assembly that increase costs (different SKUs to manage during production, in the showroom, and for years for service parts), and on the plus side, some people may decide to pay the money to unlock the higher capacity, which would be a zero-cost revenue stream in the future.

      I would be surprised if Tesla loses money on the $35k car. They probably don't make a lot of profit on it, and if 99% of customers start buying the cheapest model, they should start building them with a smaller battery pack.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    26. Re:Software to limit functionality? by SWPadnos · · Score: 1

      The cost of the steel is the same, but making it in the right shape costs money. I'm assuming that the parts are not identical between the battery packs, since things like retainers and supports might need to move based on the number of cells.

      It's not all about the assembly, it's partly about SKUs, inventory management, production line scheduling, and long-term replacement parts inventory.

      --
      - The Sigless Wonder
    27. Re:Software to limit functionality? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      They don't purposefully take a 3.8 GHz processor and throttle it down to 3.2 GHz so they can sell it for less money. They sell the 3.8 GHz unit as a 3.8 GHz unit. and the one that runs at 3.2 GHz reliably is sold as a 3.2 GHz processor.

      Actually Intel and other CPU vendors do this all the time. Say a vendor orders a bunch of 3.2 GHz processors. If they don't have enough low binner processors to fullfill the order they use higher binned ones and clock them lower.

      It's called artificial scarcity.

    28. Re:Software to limit functionality? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The people who pre-ordered the car only made a small deposit on it. They didn't pay the full amount.

    29. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole premise is that the M3 was supposed to reduce electric car costs to be affordable, so he should be going against inflation. And no, food costs have not gone up by the amount you described, $35k in 2016 dollars is ~$37k in 2019.

    30. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LG WH16NS40 Super Multi Blue Internal SATA 16x Blu-ray Disc Rewriter is exactly the same as the $250 WH16NS48DUP used in duplicators. The latter has the ability to do quality scans only because its firmware allows it and the former does not. And yes, cross flashing the firmware works if you know how.

    31. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in semiconductors and it's ubiquitous. A product line of 60 models of microcontroller might have 2 or 3 mask-sets or maybe even just one. The rest of them are downgraded via fuses or laser "repair". The low end chips do literally cost more to produce than the high-end ones, but that's marketing.

    32. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Presumably replacing a (compact) engine is quite a bit easier than replacing a (flat, wide, long) battery that forms the entire floor of your chassis.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    33. Re:Software to limit functionality? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So - the car still COSTS Tesla the same amount of money to make, they will just sell it to you for cheaper if you let them set a few bits in the firmware - thereby cutting their own margins.

      If they make another variant of the battery pack, then they have to do another series of crash tests in order to be able to sell cars with it in. They don't that many vehicles with the lower allotment will be sold, and/or they expect that many of those vehicles will be upgraded later. In the mean time, they're reducing warranty claims by selling an overprovisioned pack, which will last longer because it will not be discharged as far. This is really not as complicated as it would have to be to justify your incredulity.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Example, please? I work in high-volume consumer electronics and I've never seen this done.

      You've "never seen it done" in high-volume consumer electronics? You've never seen a desktop Intel i5, then?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    35. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It did do that, it seems. $40k is still less than $80k which was still less than $120k had been before. It's only a matter of "when", not "if".

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    36. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant by limiting the warranty repairs. Not all units behave the same. This means there's a spread of operational behavior between individual units, and that means that longer average battery life means fewer outliers falling below the warranty terms.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    37. Re:Software to limit functionality? by mesterha · · Score: 1

      Haven't they done this with CPUs. They could make a smaller chip and get better yields, but it would be more expensive. In principle, it is the same with cars. They must have accountants who run the numbers to maximize something that involves profits as a component.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    38. Re:Software to limit functionality? by es330td · · Score: 2

      For that to be true the inflation rate would have to be almost 4.5%. If inflation was that high interest rates would be much higher, not 3%. The best measure of inflation is bond markets.

    39. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weight distribution in the car would change which would have knock on effect for the whole design esp safety.

    40. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example, please?

      Uh....Boeing MCAS?

    41. Re:Software to limit functionality? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Example, please?

      Examples abound. Oscilloscopes are a good example. I bought a good scope (nice mixed signal model) then paid extra to get the bus decoding features unlocked. Mine's a Hameg, but all the vendors do it. Some of them even allow you to unlock higher sampling rates.

      It certainly used to be the case with graphics cards too (in the AGP era). Nvidia Quadros used to be identical to the much cheaper consumer models. The "pro" features like stereo visuals were unlocked by the drivers. You used to be able to change the ID with a kernel hack and get the pro features. They closed that loophole but you could still do it by bridging some resistors on the board. They kept changing the drivers to try to keep the pro features disabled.

      It's definitely the case with CPUs. Often the lower core count/lower clocked ones are binned when the cores/high clocks weren't stable. As the production line matures and the yield goes up, they just disable the features instead.

      Apparently several models of gopro vary only in the firmware.

      At one point Apple charged a fee (or threatened to?) to enable 802.11n on some devices.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    42. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be an idiot to think that. Both are a bitch to replace. On purpose.

    43. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha you cunt ..... are all your posts modded at -1 now?

    44. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And each time the car has gotten significantly shittier.

    45. Re: Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Did it really? The first vehicle had 244 miles of range. The *standard* model 3 has 220 or 240 miles of range, almost the same. The long range version is at 320 miles. I'd think that this is definitely progress, as is most likely the reliability and lifetime of the battery pack.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    46. Re: Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You need to strip down the entire car to remove the engine from its compartment? Like you'd need with Tesla's batteries?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    47. Re:Software to limit functionality? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      Musk was still CEO of Tesla last time I checked. He is still at the helm.

      Still, I do think this is a cynical move. In fact, the announcement of the $35k model 3 was a cynical move. I don't think there was ever any possibility of building it at a profit. I think they just announced it as part of a bait and switch move.

      2016: "if you sign up to the waiting list for our super duper $35k car, you won't have to make do with a crappy Leaf or Bolt.

      2019: "Oh sorry, you can't have the $35k car after all. What about a $40k one instead?"

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    48. Re:Software to limit functionality? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      In the US from March 2016 to March 2019, consumer prices have risen by approximately 6.7%. $35k then would therefore be about $37,400 now.

      However, when the car was announced, Musk said deliveries would begin in late 2017, so we should really be measuring the price rise between (say) October 2017 and now. That's about 3.25%.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    49. Re:Software to limit functionality? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Example, please?"

      The number keypads on drive-up ATMs still have bump on the '5' key so you can find i by touch even though to get there you would have to be able to drive to get there. It's a huge savings in stock tracking and inventory to just use they same keypad everywhere.

    50. Re:Software to limit functionality? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      It's been years since they've fused off working units to get a lower SKU since everybody is supply constrained on the high end. But what they will do is take the four core die with two out of spec cores and package that as a two core SKU.

    51. Re:Software to limit functionality? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Nobody has a excess of top bin parts these days.

    52. Re:Software to limit functionality? by hawk · · Score: 1

      The two classic examples are IBM mainframe clock frequency (in which you paid extra to get the gizmo halving the frequency *removed*,), and early electronic calculators.

      The reality is that for some products, each engineering variant adds significant costs. So it costs you less to build, for example, a single calculator chip with all of the abilities, but not put square root keys and memory keys on your low end models.

      If you wanted to sell all $40 full featured calculators, you couldn't sell as many as $20 limited feature calculators. So you sell both. If you used two chips, you'd drive the prices to $45 and $25, and not sell as many of either.

      Both seller *and* consumer are better off with the single product.

      Another piece of the explanation is that a huge portion of the costs is in the design of the chip and in making the dies; the cost of each produced chip, while real, is small compared to the cost of bringing it into existence.

      BTW, this is exactly the same economics for pharmaceutical companies selling cheap to foreign countries when forced, even though they don't cover the average cost on those sales. When you have $1b to design and test, and $1 per pill to make them, with a market of half a billion pills, it makes sense to take $1.50 from the foreign market even though it doesn't cover the "fair share" of development costs.

      The most important reform for pharmaceuticals would be to require that pills be made available to US pharmacies or wholesalers on the same terms as offered to any foreign entity. That is, if the average cost of proaction is $3, even though the pill is $1 to make, it makes sense *now* to sell to foreign country for $2 if the choice is not selling any to them. But if selling to them at $2 means that you have to sell in the US for $2, the answer is "hell, no" when the foreign buyer tries to strongarm. *Both* the US consumer and the manufacturer benefit from this rule.

      hawk, economics professor

    53. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example: FLIR infrared camera. You can buy the low resolution QCIF model and then hack firmware to convert it to the high resolution model.

    54. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea: you don't have to completely fill the battery case with batteries! You can use a block-out to fill the dead space. Then it's exactly the same effort on the production line. Seriously, this is trivial to solve. This is a case of Tesla trying to force upsells as much as possible.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    55. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Same steel. All you do is make a filler block to replace some of the cells internally. It literally is like taking a battery pack for your cordless drill, removing some of the cells, filling that in with a plastic spacer and a piece of wire, and being done with it. If the excuse is "it's too expensive", then what the heck is your manufacturing configuration management software doing to not enable you to save $1000+ per car, like every other car manufacturer?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    56. Re: Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you just put the filler at the center of gravity, so it's not changed at all? It would actually improve things by lowering weight, not changing the COG, and probably increasing safety as you reduce the overall energy stored in the battery pack (and with lighter weight, a given speed of collision will impart less damaging energy into the battery pack - kinetic energy = 0.5 * mV^2).

    57. Re:Software to limit functionality? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Example, please? I work in high-volume consumer electronics and I've never seen this done.

      \

      Plenty.
      Every piece of equipment you sell is tested using a plethora of equipment where functionality is determined by license. HP did it in the 90s, Agilent continued it now, Keysight is still doing it. The difference between their $3000 CROs and their $2000 CROs is either embedded in the firmware or activated via bolt on dongles.

      Speaking of dongles do you know one of the differences between AMD's Threadripper and Intel's Xeons? The former supports NVMe RAID in the CPU leading to blazing fast speeds. The latter (named VROC), well for that one you need a tiny little dongle that you plug into the motherboard so the firmware enables this support that is already naturally part the silicon. Well they're all about the dongles now, but in the past you could buy upgrade "vouchers" which allowed you to download and activate software utility on Intel's website to enable hyperthreadding on its desktop processors.

      That's not new either. Your UID is low enough so you should remember AMD selling two different processors, one with a multiplier unlock and one that was locked by cutting a set of laser jumpers on the surface of the package. I owned one of those lovely cheaper AMD processors, you know the ones that always ended up with a graphite pencil mark on them to bridge the jumpers and basically increase the value of the CPU by $50-100 depending on model.

      But it's not CPUs either. While the modern day QuadroRTX is a world apart from the standard desktop GPU, it used to be identical with features in the desktop GPU disabled via driver support. Man was there a cat and mouse game over that. It was once as easy as forcing the Quadro driver to install. Then NVIDIA locked that out in the GPU BIOS so you needed to flash a custom BIOS to get it to install. Then they tried setting a resistor on the motherboard. Yeah when running my 3D modelling software as a home hobby I could spend $1000 more on a Quadro K5000, or I could just buy a GTX690, bust out the soldering iron, move 2 resistors to the right, and then spend the spare $1000 on hookers, ... or you know invest in my future or something.

      You know why my Samsung TV doesn't support WiFi via the Samsung WiFi dongle? Because I didn't pay $100 more to have a single line changed in the config file in the embedded software in the TV. To be fair you get different "hardware" for $100 more. You get a $20 WiFi dongle and one of the USB ports on the TV has a sticker on it saying "WiFi" instead of "USB 3". Fortunately a quick Telnet into the TV combined with factory default logins and passwords and I saved myself a cool $80. I do wish I had that WiFi label though.

      Though by far the dumbest one I've seen was posted on Hackaday: the Casio fx-82ES. This 20EUR calculator lacks complex numbers which are available on the 35EUR Casio fx-991ES. While early models allowed you to do the AMD trick and use a pencil to bridge 2 pads with graphite (a soldering iron would be a better idea) and make the calculator think it's more expensive, the current model removed those pads. No worry though thanks to a buffer overflow attack you can keep mashing the ( key 7 times + ANS over and over again until the calculator appears to crash, suddenly forgets what it is and now magically has all the complex features of it's older brother, almost twice the price.

      Clearly you don't open electronics. Seeing model table showing what model something is on account of what activated already existing features it shipped with it is nothing out of the ordinary: https://cdn.instructables.com/... This calculator hardware is one of 24 possible models depending on where resistors are placed and the colour of the case the hardware is in.

      But I've never seen it done, because if you're going to sell in any appreciable volume, the costs "was

    58. Re:Software to limit functionality? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Not quite. What's you're describing is binning. They aim for the top and then bin the chips with dead cores.

      It is however done on CPUs in general. See Intel VROC, a little hardware dongle you plug in on the motherboard that enables the NVMe RAID support in the Xeon CPU, or maybe back in the Clarksdale days where you could buy an upgrade voucher with a certain code in it to enable hyperthreadding on your processor via a utility from Intel's website.

    59. Re:Software to limit functionality? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Good one. Didn't know about the IBM mainframe one, but a current practice from Intel on their high end stuff is to ship Xeons with NVMe RAID that is disabled unless an appropriate $150 dongle is detected on the motherboard. AMD likes telling the world that Threadripper gives you that feature for free.

    60. Re:Software to limit functionality? by mesterha · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how that contradicts my statement, but even focusing on cores, I doubt market demand would match this strategy. In the past many a CPU was sold that had locked potential. With AMD you could even unlock it. https://www.makeuseof.com/answ...

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    61. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea: If you don't do that, you don't have to juggle your inventory if you misjudge the near-future demand.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    62. Re:Software to limit functionality? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      AMD had to do that since they were getting too many too-good chips. They didn't even bother with fusing anything off in some cases.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    63. Re:Software to limit functionality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibilities:
      1. They did market research and determined this move is profit neutral because customers will tend to buy a firmware battery upgrade in the long run and the extra battery isn't really that much money.
      2. They want the ability to boost range dramatically in times of emergency like they have in the past, and with this they can say stuff like 50% longer range*.
      3. Putting way more battery in allows better charge management, which will make the packs last way longer, which will contribute towards their average battery cycles per lifetime figure for marketing purposes.
      4. They retain the option of putting their ultra good cells in packs destine for the off-the-lot full spec cars, and the mediocre cells in the lower range cars. Even though the capacity could be the same, you may get more full cycles from the high binned packs, increasing customer satisfaction, and still meet spec for the lower binned packs since perhaps customers don't upgrade until an average of three years or something.

      And this is just crap I scraped off the top of my head. Who knows what a dozen paid engineers and marketers could come up with.

    64. Re:Software to limit functionality? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      They know at least SOME of the demand - those tens of thousands of $35K model 3s presold. But I guess better to spend extra on batteries than deal with the problem. This just screams of a company that is immature in its internal warehousing/stocking/manufacturing processes and will spend hundreds - thousands? - more per vehicle rather than optimize their manufacturing processes to handle what is considered normal throughout the rest of the industry (build to spec, on a production line).

      This should be no more difficult than installing different colored interior panels. Same physical dimensions, same connections - just differences in the internals of the component which is irrelevant to the production line process.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    65. Re:Software to limit functionality? by hawk · · Score: 1

      It's entirely possible that technological differences mean that it makes sense for Intel to use one die for multiple products this way, while AMD finds it more efficient to make multiple dies.

      I hadn't heard ab out there dongle, though--I would have thought it more efficient to do this on the package with fuses.

      And I forgot to mention the articles in the 70s in Popular Electronics and the like that showed you how to mount four or five buttons on the case of your calculator to get the extra functions . . .

      hawk

  4. Shit should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > use software to limit the battery range and turn off features

    Fuck tesla.

    1. Re: Shit should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      companies are worse than governments

  5. Mediocre doesn't generate excitement by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Tesla still dangling that $35k carrot out there I see.
    Non-news until they actually start selling the car they promised at the price / performance they promised.

    If you want to try and peddle an inferior version of your cars on me, remember there are more than plenty of ICE options still out there.

    If your option is too expensive or of inferior quality / performance, it really makes my choice a rather easy one doesn't it ?

    1. Re:Mediocre doesn't generate excitement by supremebob · · Score: 1

      I think that the problem is that Tesla still hasn't figured out how the traditional car industry works yet, or they just think that they're somehow above it.

      For any other car maker, It's normal to show a shiny cool looking $50,000 car with all of the premium performance and luxury features in your car advertising. They then end that commercial with some bullshit tag line saying "Starting at $30,000" to get people in the door. When they come in, they'll then see some stripped down piece of junk in the $30,000 price range with a cloth interior, tiny wheels, a choice of two drab colors, and a "standard option" list that looks like something from a 2003 Kia.

      Most people aren't going to buy that car, but you at least have to have a few of them on the lot in order to convince them to upgrade to the shiny $50,000 car from the ads. Because, hey... the "LX" model is only extra $89 a month if you put down a $5,000 deposit on today's "special" offer and finance the car out for 72 months, right??

      That's the part that Tesla got wrong. They were in such a rush to get product out the door that they didn't even bother building a few stripped down base model cars in order to demonstrate to customers what do NOT want to buy. Instead, they tried to standardize their production processes on a single model, and now that's all they have available to sell.

      This last minute trick of disabling features like extended range and heated seats in software is also a joke. You know that there will be YouTube tutorials up within a week after shipment showing people how to re-enable these features, quickly followed by the inevitable lawsuits and PR nightmare when Tesla voids their warranties for "unauthorized" modifications to their cars.

    2. Re:Mediocre doesn't generate excitement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is some super-pedantry: if the extra is $89 a month over 72 months + $5000 deposit, that's $11408 extra to upgrade from a $30000 to $50000. Which is a fair discount and could totally motivate someone who was thinking, "$50k is too much but for $40k I'd do it... ehh let me pretend the $1408 is not real."

    3. Re: Mediocre doesn't generate excitement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I bought that 2003 KIA. Truthfully.

      We bought that loss leader KIA Spectra in July 2003 for $8000. No A/C and hand crank windows. Great car, which we only sold because child #4 was coming and we needed another seat.

    4. Re:Mediocre doesn't generate excitement by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      They couldn't do that. If you remember, the Model 3 generated massive interest and Tesla had a stack of pre-orders.If they had made the $35k version available, they would have been sold straight away to people on the waiting list, probably at a substantial loss.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  6. Cost of cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The car community likes to talk about Tesla having a huge cost advantage over rivals. Well...

    Clearly they wouldn't make money on a $35K model 3, which has a 50 kWh pack.

    If Tesla is truly at roughly $100/kWh, as everyone speculates, that means the pack costs them an even $5,000.

    Assume they sold a model 3 with no pack at all. This means they would not be able to build and sell this car, without a pack and without the entire internal combustion engine system, for $30k.

    Tesla very likely has a considerable cost advantage in batteries, but in the rest of the car, it looks like they're well behind in the production engineering and economies of scale race. Look at what you can buy from Honda for well under $30k, even with the full gasoline engine drivetrain intact.

    1. Re:Cost of cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla very likely has a considerable cost advantage in batteries

      Tesla has no "advantage in batteries", Panasonic does. Tesla is just an assembly plant built with Panasonic tech and Panasonic money, and Panasonic isn't paying for it anymore now that demand for cars has collapsed.

    2. Re: Cost of cars by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      demand for cars has collapsed

      Are we in an economic crisis already?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re: Cost of cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    4. Re:Cost of cars by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Clearly they wouldn't make money on a $35K model 3, which has a 50 kWh pack.

      If Tesla is truly at roughly $100/kWh, as everyone speculates, that means the pack costs them an even $5,000.

      You seem to be ignoring that fact that economics can change as production processes are refined.

      It might not have made much sense to make $35K models six months ago, I might make perfect sense now. Who knows?

      --
      No sig today...
  7. And the subscription model creeps into car sales by bferrell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has anyone noticed that Panasonic is backing away from Tesla now too?

  8. Why does their choice of ordering platform... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does their choice of ordering platform determine which features they can sell you? Seems like their systems could use some work, if that's really so.

    A Tesla spokesman said the change would allow the company to produce one version of the Model 3 and use software to limit the battery range and turn off features such as heated seats for customers who wanted the $35,000 model. A longer range and additional features will be switched on in the $39,500 car, known as the Standard Plus model.

    1. Re:Why does their choice of ordering platform... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      So the heating coils for the heated seats are there, just disabled in software? If the software can't be hacked, sounds like something a $5 fuse, switch, and wire would fix.

    2. Re:Why does their choice of ordering platform... by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      It is harder to upsell over the Internet. When the web page keeps popping up "how about adding this great option for a low, low total of $45k", you just adblock it.

    3. Re:Why does their choice of ordering platform... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That is also the case today for SR+ model which only has front heated seats. Rear heated seats are software disabled.

      Good luck hacking software. If you can do that, then removing acceleration limitations would be a better bang for buck. Get 3s 0-60 out of $37K version lol.

    4. Re:Why does their choice of ordering platform... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a problem hacking the "software"? Rumour had it a few months ago that is just a hodge-podge of Perl scripts uploading a full virtual machine image without as much as a digital signature check.

      Tesla can make software about as well as they can make trunks that let no rain in.

      That is, very badly.

  9. Also more Chevy Volt than Model 3, under $35K. Tod by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > remember there are more than plenty of ICE options still out there.

    And if you want an American plug-in for under $35k, you can pick up a Volt today. As a bonus, it also has an engine you can choose to use instead of stopping to charge ten minutes before you reach your destination. Maybe that's why there are more Volts on the road than Model 3 or Model S. Ford has three plug-ins to choose from, including options under $35,000.

    That's just American plug-ins. Last month, 100,000 plug-ins were made by Chinese companies. In the last three months, China has made more electric cars than Tesla has made in ten years. You've got the Nissan Leaf, Rimac produces the world's fastest production electric car, etc.

  10. Re: And the subscription model creeps into car sal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Panasonic distancing is wise. They advanced their tech but should be more agnostic with their customer base. Tesla heavily leveraged so sinking cash in that direction very risky.

  11. Hedging Bets... Sell by kittylu · · Score: 1

    Razors and eyeglasses have proven to be market âoedisrupters.â Cars, not so much. Tesla is over and out, sooner rather than later.

    1. Re:Hedging Bets... Sell by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      Razors and eyeglasses have proven to be market âoedisrupters.â Cars, not so much. Tesla is over and out, sooner rather than later.

      Don't come crying when you lose money, shortseller.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Hedging Bets... Sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does everybody assume that the folks pointing out that Tesla is in really bad shape is a short seller?

      Just because a business is clearly going out of business doesn't mean that it will happen quickly enough to make money shorting the stock.

    3. Re: Hedging Bets... Sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irrational hatred of the truth so typical for the stupid who believe Captain Murricah "won" against the "nazies".

    4. Re: Hedging Bets... Sell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep sucking Elon's stubby cock. Maybe you'll get that "sweet reward" before Tesla goes tits up.

    5. Re:Hedging Bets... Sell by gravewax · · Score: 1

      at a guess they are either fan bois/gals or have done the opposite and stupidly invested large amounts of money.

  12. Slashdot boiz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL. Why most this crap? 40K automobile? Most Slashdot readers struggle to buy a BART pass.

    1. Re: Slashdot boiz by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      My truck has been paid off for half a decade.

  13. Re:I am incredibly gay... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry that I stepped on your pee-pee while you were doing your best to support the Opus Dei. I'll do my best to avoid that in the future.

    Peace out... in APK format.

  14. drive themselves, with no human at the wheel and w by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    drive themselves, with no human at the wheel and who is liable? and no EULA can pin it on leaser or taxi hailed at least in criminal court.
    and in civil court Tesla may have an hard time getting off with an 3rd party victim that had no EULA

  15. Re:I am incredibly gay... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Re: I am incredibly gay... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apk is melting down lol

  17. Re: I am incredibly gay... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is APK he you JEWS melt with facts you yourselves supply from you history, belief and doings https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

  18. I predict by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

    Self driving cars are going to be a pipe dream. One accident with no one to blame and thats it.

    Its one of those futurey things that sounds easy, but ends up being really fucking hard without sometimes killing people.

    --
    -
    1. Re:I predict by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Self driving cars are going to be a pipe dream. One accident with no one to blame and thats it.

      Its one of those futurey things that sounds easy, but ends up being really fucking hard without sometimes killing people.

      Luckily for us, judges are as stupid as people who keep repeating that.

      Cars don't have to be be perfect, they just have to be better than the monkeys that are currently behind the wheels.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:I predict by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Its one of those futurey things that sounds easy, but ends up being really fucking hard without sometimes killing people.

      This is all rather sad really. We know that human driven cars are impossible to do without killing tons of people. However, "we" won't accept killing far fewer people if we can't blame someone for the deaths that do occur.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  19. Battery of Standard Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least until the announcement, and at least for now on tesla.com I think they're still selling the same size battery. The standard plus clearly has a different, apparently more efficient, motor. (130mph -> 140 mph, 0-60 time of 5.6s -> 5.3s) So efficiency of the motor is likely what makes the range 240 miles instead of 220 miles.

    If that stuff about a bigger battery is true, maybe they're going to start putting the midrange battery in and limit it to the standard battery range in software. That would cost more, so they're forcing you to buy the autopilot for $2000 more.

  20. other countries will do it if we don't by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

    I had similar fears, though Tesla's Autopilot hasn't haven't been sunk yet even after multiple people have been killed. It's an audacious strategy they've appeared to adopt... by doing it piecemeal and insisting the driver needs to be paying attention at all times, they can hide from blame while using people to beta test.

    I still think there's going to be a moral panic over it at some point, but that said, I think worse case scenario will be a delay. All it takes is one country to legalize it, then before long they'll experiment with declaring certain cities as driverless-only. The advantages will quickly become apparent--not just the convenience of not having to drive yourself and the massively improved safety, but also the reduced commutes as the cars are fine-tuned to time themselves perfectly with traffic lights (which will at some point be removed entirely, of course.) Taxis get cheap, long work commutes are no longer a chore...

    Basically, it's going to be way too awesome to ignore and the resistance in other countries will fall away. Specifically, I think both Japan and China would be much less likely to overreact to self-driving car accidents. And in the case of the latter, the government obviously isn't as beholden to public opinion... "sometimes killing people" isn't as much of a hurdle for them.

    (I have very similar theories about other areas that involve possible outcries and regulatory resistance, particularly human genetic engineering. Though that one could be much less visible.)

    1. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by tepples · · Score: 1

      declaring certain cities as driverless-only

      How would such cities handle 1. pedestrians and 2. the cost of living barrier for people who would otherwise cycle?

    2. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think both Japan and China would be much less likely to overreact to self-driving car accidents. And in the case of the latter, the government obviously isn't as beholden to public opinion... "sometimes killing people" isn't as much of a hurdle for them.

      Lol, China was one of the first to ground the 737Max8 while the FAA was still sucking Boeing cock.

    3. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      China has been known to suppress stories of accidents, including some rather major fires/explosions, if they don't want the public to overreact to it. China maybe more than any other country would strongly benefit from self-driving cars (Admittedly, they'll need to be able to handle lots and lots of bicyclers.)

    4. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      They'll figure it out as they go. I mean, that's a lazy answer but it's a complex question. Some places will scream bloody murder over it and thus we won't see driverless cars there. Ideally you have extensive sidewalks/bike paths. Some cities have those already.

      In the end the advantages are too great to ignore, particularly after cars get all around cheaper and longer lasting when electric starts to really take off. Driverless ride sharing / Uber-like services are a big game changer as well and should make transportation viable even if you're fairly poor.

    5. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, thanks for conceding defeat in your original contention of some kind of tighter American safety regulations.
      Now for your strawman, like the Americans is full transparency with bad news:
      Didn't Obama censor Abu Ghraib pictures?
      What about Julian Assange? It's "Classified" information because it exposes American Apache helicopters mowing down personnel with high caliber munition which is against the Geneva convention?
      We're talking about the country that originated #fakenews

    6. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Are you an AI? Serious question. You've shot so far past the point I'm definitely not wasting a single minute of my time trying to guide you back to it.

    7. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you wasted a minute saying you're not going to waste a minute.

    8. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      not that slow of a typist. 6 seconds tops. this one 4

    9. Re:other countries will do it if we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, you wasted two minute saying you're not going to waste a minute.

  21. What does it take to replace the ECU? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's all bits in a computer, unless each module has its own encryption, you can just turn on the heating units in the seats yourself after pulling the ECU, or connect your own piggyback harness to bypass it instead.

    If they have circuit boards in the seats themselves, did they pot them so consumers can't get to them and pull the circuits and run their own?

    Open source the car. Cars are not cell phones. Fuck Cars as a Service!

  22. Re:Also more Chevy Volt than Model 3, under $35K. by michelcolman · · Score: 2

    More Volts on the road than Teslas?

    In 2018, 18306 Volts were sold vs. 139782 Model 3s
    In the first three months of 2019, 2520 Volts vs 22425 Model 3s

    Even just the Model S or Model X outsell the Volt, in number of cars sold, while being a LOT more expensive.

    https://insideevs.com/monthly-...

  23. Electric cars for tbe low wage Joe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep driving those fossil fuel cars, low wage earners....electric cars are for haves...not have nots.....

  24. Re: Also more Chevy Volt than Model 3, under $35K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, more Volts ON THE ROAD. Volts have been sold for more than 6 years. Although sales dropped recently, they are still out there.

  25. Hi Rei! Tesla is dooooomed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sell your Tesla shares. Fast! This pig is cooked. Stick a fork in it.

    They cant sell a base model car (without lying). How do you really seriously expect to see these same ass clowns put a,fully level 5 autonomous vehicle on the road by 12/31/19, like you said they would?

    It is time for the Tesla Dead Pool!

    Since we are all remote we canâ(TM)t actually bet money but we can do it gentlemens-bet style.

    I say Tesla dies on Christmas Day. ;-)

    Anyone else have a DOA date in mind for this walking corpse of a fake company?

  26. Re:Also more Chevy Volt than Model 3, under $35K. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, do you know that there are many things you said that are wrong?

    There are not more Volts on the road than Model 3. 136,358 Volts have been sold through March of 2019. Bloomberg tracks Model 3 at 230,070 with 7 less years on the market.

    And, by the way, why are you comparing hybrids to full electrics? Not exactly apples-to-apples there. What's the total cost of ownership on one when you still have to do all the maintenance that full-electrics don't? What about the fuel costs, and the reduced efficiency of hauling around a heavy engine you aren't using if you attempt to go all-electric by plugging it in?

    You know that Nissan is not a Chinese company, right?

  27. Re: Also more Chevy Volt than Model 3, under $35K. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Still wrong.

    136k Volts sold over 9 years. 250k+ Teslas sold in the US alone, confirmed by the phasing-out of the EV tax credit.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  28. the real reason.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this has absolutely nothing to do with any reason they provided.

    they want to upsell, hard. and it's much easier to do the evil car salesman tactics in person.

  29. Re:And the subscription model creeps into car sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Their contract with Tesla ended not too long ago and Tesla just purchased a battery company who has patents on next-generation battery tech.

  30. They keep thrashing about lately .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Lots of seat of the pants changes and decisions that quickly get pulled back, as of late. Of course, the pundits are coming out of the woodwork, declaring this indicates Tesla really is on its death-bed and about to fail, etc.

    I suspect some of thing happens in other businesses all the time, but nobody notices -- because when it's a more mundane product like a can of soup or a new pair of pliers, there aren't all the eyes on it.

    In any case, I think THIS change isn't a big deal. I agree that most sensible car buyers are going to opt to pay the $39,500 for this "Standard Plus" configuration of the Model 3 if they could afford the $35K for the base model. I mean, why wouldn't you when you don't even get the autopilot features Teslas are noted for if you go for the absolute cheapest one? Longer battery life and some extras like heated seats enabled too? You're going to do a lot better at resale time than you will trying to get someone to buy your used Model 3 base edition.

  31. Costs have been estimated .... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    There was recently a YouTube video I watched where a CEO in the auto industry did some "best guess" cost estimates on what Tesla was really spending to build its vehicles.

    His belief was that the $35K Model 3 was probably at or near a "break even" point, IF it was built in the USA. The big differentiator would be if Tesla opted to build it in China instead, where he estimated it could then sell at $35K while still making at least a 15-20% profit margin.

    I suspect that's the issue with selling a base Model 3 right now; at $35,000 - Tesla isn't making anything on the car. They probably JUST barely achieved break-even at that cost, right now, so it doesn't benefit them to sell the cars at that price EXCEPT for the hope they'll make some profit down the road, as people pay Tesla to enable the disabled features on it.

    With them in kind of a cash crunch as of late, it's not that appealing to produce vehicles that only potentially make them a future $5,000 or $8,000 profit. So yeah, they'll sell it to you if you ask for it specifically -- but they don't want to really market it to people or make it easy to get one configured that way.

  32. New company, same old sleaze... by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    Tesla is bringing the sleazy car sales game into the modern era. What do expect from a company run by a tech guy in the age of the ubiquitous TOS? The arrangement and even the product you purchased are subject to change at any time.

  33. Here's the real deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can only buy the $35K Model 3 at our dealerships.

    Oh by the way, we are shutting the dealerships down.

  34. Doing that on purpose, or had a brain fart? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Are you purposely conflating things to try to mislead readers, or did you just have a brain fart?

    There are millions of Chevys out there. A hundred times as many Chevrolet as Model 3, but that's not what we're talking about.

    The top three American made plug-in cars are:
    Volt
    Model S
    Model 3

    Worldwide, BMW produces thousands i8 cars each month, and all of these are a joke to BYD, who makes more electric vehicles than Chevy, Tesla, and BMW combined.

  35. What costs wasted in production? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    if you're going to sell in any appreciable volume, the costs "wasted" in production vastly outweigh

    How do you know the costs "vasty outweigh"?

    In fact, doesn't it seem like the costs of having two different kinds of batteries in an assembly line, along with needing to stock spare batteries of both types for years, along with the manufacturing costs of multiple kinds of batteries instead of just one all add up to a pretty significant cost - especially when you are talking about something as large as a whole-car battery?

    The extra "cost" is merely a few pounds of battery material. Why is that so unthinkable? The side advantage of that is that the battery life of the lower-range cars will be improved because even as battery performance deteriorates somewhat over time, that is made up for by the unused capacity that is software limited. So it makes a ton of sense all around, especially since Tesla in manufacturing their own batteries...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  36. Re: Also more Chevy Volt than Model 3, under $35K by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glad to know that the number of volts sold over 6 years outnumbered the number of model 3 sold for less than 2 years.

  37. Fuck off APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off APK