Tesla Owner Says Remotely Disabled Autopilot Features Have Been Restored (theverge.com) 115
Tesla has restored the Autopilot driver assistance features it remotely disabled on a Model S, just days after the story was first reported by Jalopnik. The owner in question, who Jalopnik refers to as Alec, said he was contacted by a Tesla customer experience rep who "apologized for my troubles, told me that Tesla has restored all missed options" and "cited a miscommunication" as the reason why the company pulled the Autopilot features in the first place. The Verge reports: Alec had purchased the used 2017 Model S in December from a third-party dealer that acquired the car from Tesla at auction in November. The original owner had equipped the car with the (now-retired) "Enhanced Autopilot" version of Tesla's driver assistance package and the company's "Full Self-Driving" package, which promises increased autonomy over the years. Three days after Tesla sold the car to the dealer, Tesla performed a "remote audit" that flagged those features for removal, according to Jalopnik. Even then, the features were never removed, and the dealer posted the car for sale with both Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving featured on the car's Monroney sticker -- meaning Alec paid for a car with those features.
But when Alec took the car to a Tesla service center a few weeks after his purchase, he was told that the features were removed. Tesla has removed features from used cars in the past, but typically does so before the car is sold off to a third-party dealer or a new owner. Since Tesla pulled these features both after it sold the car to the dealer, and after that dealer sold it to Alec, it caused some fear that the company was setting a precedent for yanking features on a whim.
But when Alec took the car to a Tesla service center a few weeks after his purchase, he was told that the features were removed. Tesla has removed features from used cars in the past, but typically does so before the car is sold off to a third-party dealer or a new owner. Since Tesla pulled these features both after it sold the car to the dealer, and after that dealer sold it to Alec, it caused some fear that the company was setting a precedent for yanking features on a whim.
Re: If this was GM (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: If this was GM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The features were actually removed from the car after the auction and transfer of title to the used car dealer. You have no basis for alleging removal occurred after the transfer of title but before delivery to the dealer. Not that that matters. The car's condition cannot be changed after the auction unless it is disclosed to the auction buyer prior to s
Re: If this was GM (Score:1)
The Slashdot article said that Tesla removed the feature after the dealer sold it to Alec but he only visited on the 20th. You had better documentation that I had in general, thank you.
Re: If this was GM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The internet outrage would know no bounds. It's Tesla doing this, so of course they get a pass and excuses.
Ummm... there was plenty of outrage.
I predicted the outcome, too: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Well yes (Score:2)
it caused some fear that the company was setting a precedent for yanking features on a whim.
You don't own the software. You only own the hardware. Guaranteed Tesla will eventually be like Amazon and decide to yank whatever they feel like whenever they want to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I will never buy safety-critical hardware with automatic OTA updates. I have no way to prevent the next version of autopilot from suddenly driving into a tree. And we already know that Tesla will just blame it on the driver as they did with all of the previous autopilot crashes.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, you do. You could always disconnect the antenna it uses for OTA or put foil over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead blocks signals, not tinfoil.
Um, sure... (Score:1)
The original owner had equipped the car with the (now-retired) "Enhanced Autopilot" version of Tesla's driver assistance package and the company's "Full Self-Driving" package, which promises increased autonomy over the years.
The original owner did no such thing. The Monroney sticker had those features listed which means the manufacturer (Tesla) produced the vehicle with them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is amazing how many people comment without understanding this issue, and the way that it prevents any of the stories they're telling from mattering.
They said it had it, they didn't intend for it to have it, but they had to restore it. Because it is what Tesla actually sold.
Nothing else matters.
Appropriate response (Score:5, Insightful)
I said in the previous article about this that Tesla needed to own up to their failure, apologize, and restore the functionality the customer had at the time of purchase.
It sounds like they did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately they went with the "misunderstanding" line which is a way of avoiding clarifying or altering their policy. In other words they did it because of all the bad publicity, not because they realized it was a shitty thing to do and possibly illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
You're still assuming they did anything illegal at all, you're still assuming that the problem didn't lie in the distributor. Just because someone getting bad publicity fixes something doesn't mean they were the cause in the first place.
Tesla's policy remains unchanged because there's nothing to change. They don't alter resold cars. They do alter cars returned to them depending on what they think is best. This is note illegal or even negative.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I said in the previous article about this that Tesla needed to own up to their failure, apologize, and restore the functionality the customer had at the time of purchase.
It sounds like they did.
Who's failure? As other people have pointed out previously there were at the very least 3 different parties involved with multiple changes to the vehicle in the process. I'm willing to bet Tesla did this for goodwill and publicity on account of them being blamed, not necessarily because it was "their failure".
The dealer is the culprit here (Score:2, Interesting)
For those who don't know the full story...
Tesla sold a used car to the deal "without" autopilot. However the feature was not "yet" removed from the car. The shady dealer took advantage of that fact. And sold the car as having the feature that he did not pay for.
Tesla took the blame and ate the cost when they legally did not have to.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla took the blame and ate the cost when they legally did not have to.
"Ate the cost"? It was a feature they were already paid for by the orignal owner. The idea Tesla should get paid multiple times for a one-time purchase to enable a feature is half the problem here.
Also, according the summary, the feature was retired. So Tesla wasn't going to be able sell the upgrade to the new owner anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ate the cost"? It was a feature they were already paid for by the orignal owner. The idea Tesla should get paid multiple times for a one-time purchase to enable a feature is half the problem here.
Near as I can tell, nobody's said they were auctioning it for a client. It could be a trade-in, an expired lease or a demo car but near as I can tell at the start of the story it was owned outright by Tesla and they'd obviously be in their full right to upgrade it, downgrade it, scrap it for parts or send it on the next rocket to Mars if they like. But then they listed it at auction and sold it to a dealer, the dealer sold it to a customer. That listing contained features that were suppose to be paid add-on
Re: (Score:3)
The "retired" feature set (Enhanced Autopilot) is now included in the "Full Self Driving" package, which the car had when the dealer bought it and has now been restored.
Note that the article isn't accurate:
"Since Tesla pulled these features both after it sold the car to the dealer, and after that dealer sold it to Alec"
The article claims that the features were removed after Alec bo
Re: (Score:2)
The article claims that the features were removed after Alec bought the car, but they were removed while the dealer owned the car and before Alec bought the car.
Do you have a source for this claim? From the timeline I saw, the car was both sold and delivered to the ultimate buyer before the audit was triggered.
The dealer certainly both checked the auction papers for the feature and tested the autopilot capability and found it working. I am confident that the dealer was not aware that there was a problem before he sold it to the ultimate buyer.
Re: (Score:2)
The Jalopnik article and particularly the update to that article, which shows communication from the dealer::
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! That certainly clears it up.
Re: (Score:3)
Except it was a return to tessla, they presumably gave the original owner a replacement or their money back. So no they aren't getting paid multiple times, by your logic the original owner had paid for the car so Tessla should have just given the whole thing away so they don't get paid twice. It would be different of course
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone here is saying anything out of malice (except for he who shall not be named). Merely people that either don't have all the info, read incorrect info, or posted without reading the corrections/clarifications in the comments here.
This does likely seem a case of genuine miscommunication with everyone working off the information they had at the time. The original owner was likely leasing the vehicle, in which case you are essentially paying a pro-rated value to "rent" that feature for the l
Re: (Score:2)
From my reading he brought the car, it developed a fault.
Tesla took the car back and gave the original owner a replacement car.
Tesla fixed the car and onsold the original car.
Re:The dealer is the culprit here (Score:5, Insightful)
Three days after Tesla sold the car to the dealer, Tesla performed a “remote audit” that flagged those features for removal
Pretty cut and dry. Dealer bought a car with features, Tesla removed those features after the sale was completed with no prior notice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Dealer bought the car knowing those features were part of the package because Tesla advertised them as having it.
Tesla knowing committed fraud. They are scumbags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla knowing committed fraud. They are scumbags.
Sounds to me like two Tesla departments didn't communicate well - the department doing the "remote audit" didn't know the feature was on the sticker - and the result was erroneously removing the feature.
That would be fraud if they did it knowingly and deliberately. But they didn't comment, investigated internally, fixed it, and apologized. Not fraud. Error and correction.
IMHO they should also give the used car buyer something extra, to compensate him for h
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading it wrong. Quote anything that indicates that the dealer "knew those features were not part of the package" when the vehicle was sold at auction.
Re: (Score:2)
The dealer bought the car on the sticker.
Don't be an ignorant buffoon, they wrote it on the sticker, it isn't an unreasonable thing that is obviously a typo but in fact an actual feature of the car. Therefore they're responsible for restoring it. Nothing else matters. A theory that maybe the purchaser knew the sticker was wrong is absurd. The sticker is what they're supposed to go by.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla admits a miscommunication, but I suspect that the real miscommunication was that they did not remove the features before the auction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree with this point. Tesla screwed up.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Tesla admits they removed it due to a miscommunication... Some of you Tesla defenders are a little out of your minds, eh?
There's always two or more parties involved in any communication. You're very quick to make assumptions about who was at fault in this miscommunication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The dealer is the culprit here (Score:5, Informative)
'Tesla sold a used car to the deal "without" autopilot.'
Wong, Telsa brought the vehicle to a wholesale auction and the auction represented the vehicle having certain features, autopilot being one of the disclosed features.
The dealer bought the car from the action that was represented by Tesla.
The retail consumer purchased the vehicle from a reseller that represented the features as presented and as they knew. The consumer used the features until Telsa's internal audit.
There's no shady part of any of this. And kudos to Mr. Musk for making everyone happy [and the costless eyes waiting for resolution]. Finally a happy story.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla is double dipping. Once purchased, the software package should belong to that VIN as long as the vehicle is on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
We need a First Sale Doctrine for Tesla then.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla bought the car back, they can rip features out if they want while it is back in their ownership. This was never about that, it was about their bookkeeping snafu and how it impacted a customer. It looks like they made good on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the contract with the original owner. If this was a leased vehicle, the software-enabled features could be stipulated as rentals for the length of the lease. In which case the leasee didn't pay $8k for FSD, but maybe something closer to $1500.
Which opens up a grey area of: If this was a hardware feature like say, oldschool mechanical cruise-control and they replaced the signal stem with a non-cruise version in hopes of later upselling a cruise upgrade... is that double-dipping or ethically flawed
Re: (Score:2)
Why just software?
If it comes with a radio and the radio is replaced with a different model by the owner is it the owner's responsibility to return the radio to the original model when they sell it?
Re: (Score:2)
How did Tesla sell the used car "without" autopilot? Was autopilot installed in the vehicle at the time of sale? Yes. Was autopilot installed in the vehicle when the title was
Re: (Score:1)
It was a yellow light, with repairs done from one of the shared document. Sadly, the picture only contained the top lines of the document, the major part being out of the picture, and what was shown didn't mention FSD being part of the sale or set to be removed...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I've seen many different articles on the subject, but never that specific point of view. Are you the dealer ? Can you provide us with detailed pictures of the documents, and not only part of them ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
NB: Does this law apply to used cars as well?
No this law does not cover used cars. This law only applies to new cars, and besides, the Monroney Sticker was already delivered for this used car years ago when it was new and installed options could have been added or removed from the car since then.
Why are you so angry ? Did Tesla fire you ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to be referring to the service record [kinja-img.com] in the article, which is a post-sale document (title transferred on 11/15, this document refers to a removal of AP on 11/18).
The article includes a disclosure document [kinja-img.com] that is fully visible and does
Ate what cost? (Score:2)
The point of software removal/installation is there IS no cost.
Pretending otherwise is a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla sold a used car to the deal "without" autopilot.
Tesla put a car up for auction. They intended to remove all optional software features before the auction, but they messed up and both TOLD the auction that the car had the features and left the features ENABLED.
The price at the auction, where the proceeds go to Tesla except for the auction fee, was obviously higher because those features were enabled. I.e. the dealer paid Tesla more for the car because it had autopilot -- he did not specifically "pay for autopilot", he paid one price for the entire car inc
Re: (Score:2)
...Tesla sold a used car to the deal "without" autopilot. However the feature was not "yet" removed from the car.
Why would the feature be removed? Is it a subscription that follows the driver or is it like OEM versions of Microsoft software that can't be transferred after the original owner abandons it?
Would really like some clarification here. If someone paid the $5000 for that feature and Tesla is able to delete it only to charge another $5000 for the next rube that buys the used car seems a bit scammy. If the purchased feature follows the original driver to his new Tesla then it is a subscription and should be adve
Re: (Score:2)
What follows is only my understanding.
The car in question had a fault. Tesla replaced the entire car with a new one. Then they repaired the old one and sold it used.
The fact remains: Tesla invaded the car remotely (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't change the fact, Tesla invaded the car remotely and screwed with the software, without so much as a by your leave. That is the real issue, and the reason that Tesla is henceforth banned from my life.
Re: (Score:3)
'Tesla invaded the car remotely and screwed with the software,'
They absolutely did. I agree that is fucked up. Equally as fucked up is selling two lines of a product that are physically the same product and discounting the one that has code preventing full usage of said product.
And even that is fine, except for the fact that after you purchase the product you have no access to altering control codes and attempting to may be in violation of criminal law.
Legislation will change but someone has to push the edg
Re: (Score:2)
selling two lines of a product that are physically the same product and discounting the one that has code preventing full usage
Do you think that every computer sold with Windows Home Edition (or whatever Microsoft calls it these days) should be sold with Windows Server instead for no additional cost? Does software truly have no value?
Tesla is spending serious money on R&D for the self-driving features. In your world, it's "****ed up" for Tesla to charge for the self-driving software?
People call Tesla
Re: (Score:2)
if Tesla was in the wrong it seems they did finally make it right
No they didn't, they still remotely invaded somebody's car.
Re: (Score:2)
Which by my understanding was meant to be when Tesla was the owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you can hack your Tesla to enable features Tesla won't give you. The most common one is to re-enable rapid charging on wrecked cars that have been rebuilt. Tesla won't re-enable it on some cars and on others you have to pay them to "certify" it, but it's possible to do it for free.
Of course you won't get any other Tesla services but so far they aren't completely nerfing such cars, e.g. disabling the SIM cards or blocking them from getting mapping data. I expect they will eventually though, it's probably
Re: (Score:3)
That is the real issue, and the reason that Tesla is henceforth banned from my life.
Oh LOL. Chronic Slashdot Tesla hater who never would have bought a Tesla now finally declares he has a reason for not buying a Tesla. That is the funniest thing I've read today.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi chronic ass. I love Tesla automotive, have done so since Roadster days, but I don't love digital trespassing, which is what Tesla did here. Very much don't love. You can suit yourself.
Connected car is always a rental (Score:5, Insightful)
Publicity (Score:3)
Uh, apparently a little publicity goes a long way.
They did yank features (Score:3)
it caused some fear that the company was setting a precedent for yanking features on a whim.
I don't understand this -- this didn't just cause fear that they would yank features on a whim, but they actually *did* yank features on a whim due to their own bad bookkeeping.
I don't see why anyone should feel better about this now that they've apologized and restored the feature after they were called out publicly. What are they doing to prevent this from happening again?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why anyone should feel better about this
Really you don't? I mean a feature was yanked a feature was restored. No lengthy legal process was required. This could have gone from bad to worse in so many different ways.
A large portion of a company's reputation is not only based on the products they build but how they handle problems that arise, and no company is perfect. You could release a turd and then blame your customers for holding it wrong. Or you could release a turd and fix the problem. You can make a mistake and wait for your customers to sue
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why anyone should feel better about this
Really you don't? I mean a feature was yanked a feature was restored. No lengthy legal process was required. This could have gone from bad to worse in so many different ways
Well, think of it this way -- what if instead of a car it was a physical item, like if you bought a high end 8K TV, then a week later Best Buy comes into your house and swaps it out with low-end model because that's what their paperwork said you bought.
A much better way to handle this would have been for Tesla to have sent the owner a letter, told him they they thought he didn't own the feature, then give him 30 days to respond before acting on it. That would have given the owner time to prove that he paid
Used Cars Should Keep Their Features (Score:1)
I think Tesla shouldn't be taking features away from used cars.
I can understand it if the original owner didn't buy the package and they just now rectified it. I can understand if it's an account based system, where it transfers to each new car based on owner.
But I can't understand it if it's a per-car package that expires if the car is sold.
There's some discussion as to Salvage Cars, which does get tricky and I won't go into that, but generally if a car is sold as used, it should keep the per-car packages
Re: (Score:2)
I mean Microsoft has different licensing options for windows. For an OEM, licenses are tied to a specific computer. Windows will always activate in that computer, and if you sell it, Windows goes with it too.
For individuals, Microsoft offers you the retail license, which is YOURS and you can deactivate it from one PC and activate it in your new PC.
Why can't Tesla do something similar? Full self-drive "per owner" or "per car".
Yeah because they are greedy fucks. And because they know they won't be able to get
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is the original owner brought the package but the car developed a fault. He returned the car and got a replacement one.
The new owner(Tesla) decided to sell the car without the feature but forgot to remove it in time or the dealer thought it was enabled when it wasn't.
One question (Score:2)
Does Tesla share a PR team with the Houston Astros?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
How is this even legal?
It’s not Tesla committed fraud.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not Tesla committed fraud.
From your past posts, I guess you don't mean that. Left out a full stop [period] maybe?
Tesla good : It’s not Tesla-committed fraud.
Tesla bad : It’s not. Tesla committed fraud.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not Tesla committed fraud.
You're getting so sloppy with your anti-Musk and anti-intelligent posts that you actually said the exact opposite of what you mean. Gramma is the difference between "Knowing your shit", and "Knowing you're shit". Congratulations on proving the latter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In some cases yes, e.g. free supercharging. But this case is a bit different.
Apparently the car was a lemon law return. A very common issue with the main screen in the car going yellow and Tesla's failure to fix it permanently resulted in a forced buy-back under Californian law. They then sold the car to the dealer with "full self driving" listed on the spec sheet, but later realized that they had meant to remove it so they could charge the new owner $8000.
Tesla does normally remove software features before
Re: (Score:2)
How is this even legal? Does the Tesla have a shrinkwrap license that if you sell the car, any features you bought are stripped off if you resell it?
You are legally entitled to modify anything in your possession and resell it with the modifications in place. It's why I'm going to sell my car with the custom radio rather than the factory radio which was ripped out. Remember this "resale" was a return to Tesla. They can do what they want with it at that point.
The only problem is they misadvertised the feature when they onsold it.
Re: (Score:1)
Feature deletion = legal (Score:2)
This reminds me of still unanswered question as to whether feature deletion by manufacturers is legal. I mean it arguably happens frequently in apps on the mobile phone where you have a certain feature and then suddenly it is vanishes following an update perhaps only to resurface in a new app (by the same author) or pay-to-unlock. Is that legal? Maybe the auto-update terms of service (which nobody has read, ever) contains a blurb about how that is a possibility? This is even further enabled as we rapidly a
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, a Rei-free Tesla post (Score:2)
Wondering why we're missing Rei?
Well, after resolutely backing Tesla, and accusing the used car dealer of fraud a few days ago, Rei will be taking a break from praising Tesla's reversal (but trashing other battery manufacturers in today's i-pace article).
Enjoy this brief hiatus.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Software! (Score:2)
It follows the used software license model of the other companies.
You can't sell used games according to them.
You can't also sell the OS of scrapped computers, according to them.
the list goes on.
Tesla roulette (Score:1)
Today you wake up and plan on going to work. You get into your Tesla and play - Tesla Roulette! Will it work at all or did they disable your car remotely last night? How about your features? Tesla is running low on cash so now some of your "features" are ala carte! They could do that.
Scary shit.
Remember reading about a fellow that bought one and had it serviced. I think it was $2500+ later he was out driving it in the desert with his family. They decided the car wasn't "authorized" via their very expensive