Microfactories HW3 FSD Fix

[mongo]

Tesla said it would open up small "micro factories" to replace older vehicles' hardware

Gives me flashbacks to Tier 1 manufacturing defect hell.
Totally possible to stand up crews to do this at short notice and, since Tesla has time to plan, it can go really smoothly.

Sponsored

 

[HaulingAss]

The cost of the upgrade is not clear. Maybe it is free if you own an HW3 vehicle and bought FSD. Maybe you have to pay if you own an HW3 vehicle, but did not buy FSD. We don't know, and Tesla has not provided much detail as yet.

Elon has previously clarified the cost of the upgrade for owners who purchased FSD and were promised unsupervised. It will be free to owners of those vehicles. That's why Tesla will also be offering discounted trade-ins (so they don't have to do the upgrade on owners they can entice into a new vehicle with FSD and more capable hardware). They will likely offer free FSD transfers too.

If you own a hardware 3 (or 2.5) vehicle and didn't purchase FSD when it was indicated it would drive itself someday, then I imagine you would have to pay (if they allow the upgrade at all). Because Tesla doesn't owe owners who never bought FSD anything.

 

[YDR37]

If you own a hardware 3 (or 2.5) vehicle and didn't purchase FSD when it was indicated it would drive itself someday, then I imagine you would have to pay (if they allow the upgrade at all). Because Tesla doesn't owe owners who never bought FSD anything.

Clearly that is how Tesla sees it. However, there is an argument that Tesla owes damages even to HW3 owners who didn't purchase FSD. I'm not a lawyer, so don't know if it's a good argument, but it does exist.

Suppose you bought an HW3 vehicle with the understanding (from Tesla) that the hardware was capable of full self-driving. Let's say you didn't personally value self-driving , so you didn't buy FSD.

However, you still valued self-driving capability -- because you figured that it would enhance the resale value of your vehicle.

And that doesn't seem like a crazy assumption. Suppose there are two otherwise identical Tesla vehicles, both of which originally came with HW3, but one was then upgraded to AI4. So the upgraded AI4 car has self-driving capability, while the non-upgraded HW3 car does not. Probably the upgraded car will have a higher market value, right?

So you bought an HW3 vehicle in good faith, trusting Tesla's assurances that it was capable of self-driving, which meant strong resale value. But it turned out that Tesla made a mistake, HW3 has no self-driving capability (despite Tesla's earlier claims), and so your vehicle's market value took a hit. So you suffered financial damage due to Tesla's error, and deserve compensation.

Maybe others can comment on the legal validity of this argument (or lack thereof).

 

[Engi_Nerd]

Personally I'd file "microfactories for HW3 retrofit" under the same column as the range extender battery.

 

[eswimm]

Clearly that is how Tesla sees it. However, there is an argument that Tesla owes damages even to HW3 owners who didn't purchase FSD. I'm not a lawyer, so don't know if it's a good argument, but it does exist.

Suppose you bought an HW3 vehicle with the understanding (from Tesla) that the hardware was capable of full self-driving. Let's say you didn't personally value self-driving , so you didn't buy FSD.

However, you still valued self-driving capability -- because you figured that it would enhance the resale value of your vehicle.

And that doesn't seem like a crazy assumption. Suppose there are two otherwise identical Tesla vehicles, both of which originally came with HW3, but one was then upgraded to AI4. So the upgraded AI4 car has self-driving capability, while the non-upgraded HW3 car does not. Probably the upgraded car will have a higher market value, right?

So you bought an HW3 vehicle in good faith, trusting Tesla's assurances that it was capable of self-driving, which meant strong resale value. But it turned out that Tesla made a mistake, HW3 has no self-driving capability (despite Tesla's earlier claims), and so your vehicle's market value took a hit. So you suffered financial damage due to Tesla's error, and deserve compensation.

Maybe others can comment on the legal validity of this argument (or lack thereof).

This exact scenario has already played out for AP2 and AP2.5 owners upgrading to HW3. Buying FSD entitled you to a free computer/camera upgrade, but the cost for FSD wasn't fixed based on your purchase, so increases in the FSD price absorbed the cost of the HW upgrade. In order to subscribe to FSD, you had to pay a HW upgrade fee.

Given you can't outright purchase FSD anymore, all Tesla has to do is set the upgrade price.

 

[AverageJoe]

This exact scenario has already played out for AP2 and AP2.5 owners upgrading to HW3. Buying FSD entitled you to a free computer/camera upgrade, but the cost for FSD wasn't fixed based on your purchase, so increases in the FSD price absorbed the cost of the HW upgrade. In order to subscribe to FSD, you had to pay a HW upgrade fee.

Given you can't outright purchase FSD anymore, all Tesla has to do is set the upgrade price.

So those unlucky enough to pay $15k should get a $7k refund and upgraded?

Wouldn't that be nice

 

[eswimm]

Not sure where I suggested a refund for anyone. I bought my 2016 AP2 Model X with EAP for $5k and grabbed the FSD upgrade for $2k when it was briefly offered before people complained about the price drop and it was raised back up. Tesla delivered as promised and upgraded my computer to HW3 and cameras to the newer (color) version that was delivered with AP2.5 and higher vehicles starting with the Model 3 release. I transferred that FSD and the free supercharging from my referral to a '24 Model Y. I'd have never paid $15k for FSD and I think that price hike was pretty shady, but it's ultimately on the consumer to decide if it was worth it or not.

As long as Tesla upgrades FSD owners and offers subscribers an upgrade path, I think they've met their obligation. My point is they've already demonstrated that they can upgrade a legacy vehicle to a newer AP computer and cameras, it should be ever easier to upgrade HW3 to HW4, even though the volume of vehicles will present a challenge.

 

[HaulingAss]

Clearly that is how Tesla sees it. However, there is an argument that Tesla owes damages even to HW3 owners who didn't purchase FSD. I'm not a lawyer, so don't know if it's a good argument, but it does exist.

Suppose you bought an HW3 vehicle with the understanding (from Tesla) that the hardware was capable of full self-driving. Let's say you didn't personally value self-driving , so you didn't buy FSD.

However, you still valued self-driving capability -- because you figured that it would enhance the resale value of your vehicle.

And that doesn't seem like a crazy assumption. Suppose there are two otherwise identical Tesla vehicles, both of which originally came with HW3, but one was then upgraded to AI4. So the upgraded AI4 car has self-driving capability, while the non-upgraded HW3 car does not. Probably the upgraded car will have a higher market value, right?

So you bought an HW3 vehicle in good faith, trusting Tesla's assurances that it was capable of self-driving, which meant strong resale value. But it turned out that Thater types.esla made a mistake, HW3 has no self-driving capability (despite Tesla's earlier claims), and so your vehicle's market value took a hit. So you suffered financial damage due to Tesla's error, and deserve compensation.

Maybe others can comment on the legal validity of this argument (or lack thereof).

I've seen that argument presented multiple times (usually by TSLAQ$/TSLA haters). I think it's a pretty weak legal argument. Apparently, so do Tesla's lawyers.

 

[YDR37]

I've seen that argument presented multiple times (usually by TSLAQ$/TSLA haters). I think it's a pretty weak legal argument. Apparently, so do Tesla's lawyers.

I'm not a lawyer (I suspect you aren't either), so I don't know for sure. But to my non-legal, common-sense mind, the argument seems valid. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

1. An off-road lightbar is a Desirable Feature (even if you never go off-road).
2. Tesla made representations that Foundation Series Cyberbeast buyers would get that feature.
3. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that some FS CB buyers never got a lightbar.
4. Wouldn't those FS CB buyers deserve compensation?

To my mind, the answer to #4 is "yes". And to my mind, Tesla can't wiggle out of it by stating "we don't owe you a lightbar, because you never go off-road anyway".

If that makes sense, then you can make the exact same argument for HW3 owners:

1. Self-driving capability is a Desirable Feature (even if you never use it).
2. Tesla made representations that HW3 buyers would get that feature.
3. HW3 buyers never got self-driving capability.
4. Therefore HW3 buyers deserve compensation.

And to my mind, Tesla can't wiggle out of it by stating "we don't owe you self-driving capability, because you never bought FSD anyway."

Now admittedly, the compensation owed to each individual HW3 owner who did not buy FSD would be relatively low (because the relatively high cost of FSD would not be involved). The problem is that there a lot of HW3 owners out there who did not buy FSD (probably millions). So the total liability could still be significant.

 

[mongo]

I'm not a lawyer (I suspect you aren't either), so I don't know for sure. But to my non-legal, common-sense mind, it makes sense. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

1. An off-road lightbar is a Desirable Feature (even if you never go off-road).
2. Tesla made representations that Foundation Series Cyberbeast buyers would get that feature.
3. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that some FS CB buyers never got a lightbar.
4. Wouldn't those FS CB buyers deserve compensation?

To my mind, the answer to #4 is "yes". And to my mind, Tesla can't wiggle out of it by stating "we don't owe you a lightbar, because you never go off-road anyway".

If that makes sense, then you can make the exact same argument for HW3 owners:

1. Self-driving capability is a Desirable Feature (even if you never use it).
2. Tesla made representations that HW3 buyers would get that feature.
3. HW3 buyers never got self-driving capability.
4. Therefore HW3 buyers deserve compensation.

And to my mind, Tesla can't wiggle out of it by stating "we don't owe you self-driving capability, because you never bought FSD anyway."

Now admittedly, the compensation owed to each individual HW3 owner who did not buy FSD would be relatively low (because the relatively high cost of FSD would not be involved). The problem is that there a lot of HW3 owners out there who did not buy FSD (probably millions). So the total liability could still be significant.

Your analogy doesn't work though.
The lightbar was listed equipment for FS Cyberbeasts.
Other Cybertrucks have lightbar compatibility, but not the hardware. (and even that wasn't directly advertised IIRC)

FSD was only listed equipment if one purchased FSD.
FSD capability was the non-FSD purchase item.
Availability of a HW4 upgrade kit fulfills that aspect.

 

[YDR37]

FSD capability was the non-FSD purchase item.
Availability of a HW4 upgrade kit fulfills that aspect.

I agree that a free HW4/AI4 upgrade would fulfill the purchase item for FSD capability. No other compensation would be warranted.

The issue is that Tesla is apparently not planning to offer that upgrade to all HW3 owners -- just the ones that purchased FSD (which would be a relatively small percentage)..

Tesla indicated that all HW3 vehicles have the necessary hardware for self-driving. Well, they don't. It follows that all HW3 owners qualify for a free AI4 upgrade, regardless of whether or not they actually purchased FSD.

 

[mongo]

I agree that a free HW4/AI4 upgrade would fulfill the purchase item for FSD capability. No other compensation would be warranted.

The issue is that Tesla is apparently not planning to offer that upgrade to all HW3 owners -- just the ones that purchased FSD.

Tesla indicated that all HW3 vehicles would have the necessary hardware for self-driving. It follows that all HW3 owners qualify for a free AI4 upgrade, regardless of whether or not they actually purchased FSD.

Just like all Cybertruck buyers don't qualify for a free lightbar, all HW3 buyers don't qualify for free HW4.
When HW3 cars were sold, there was a multi-thousand dollar price tag for FSD. Parity would be charging that same price for the HW4 upgrade and lifetime FSD. However, since Tesla gave warning that FSD purchase option was ending, I can see the concept that the offer has expired.

Subscriptions (2021-2023) only last for the time period they are offered and paid for. If one wants to subscribe to the HW4 version, purchase a longer time period/ price to amortize the upgrade cost will be offered.

 

[YDR37]

Just like all Cybertruck buyers don't qualify for a free lightbar, all HW3 buyers don't qualify for free HW4.

Tesla never claimed that all Cybertruck buyers would get a free light bar. But they did claim that all HW3 vehicles were FSD-capable:

"All cars being produced have the all the hardware necessary, compute and otherwise, for full self-driving. I'll say that again. All Tesla cars being produced right now have everything necessary for full self-driving. All you need to do is improve the software."

- Elon Musk, Tesla CEO, Autonomy Day 2019

Anyone buying an HW3 vehicle in 2019 had good reason to believe that they were paying for FSD-capable hardware. They didn't get what they paid for.

 

[HaulingAss]

I'm not a lawyer (I suspect you aren't either), so I don't know for sure. But to my non-legal, common-sense mind, the argument seems valid. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

1. An off-road lightbar is a Desirable Feature (even if you never go off-road).
2. Tesla made representations that Foundation Series Cyberbeast buyers would get that feature.
3. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that some FS CB buyers never got a lightbar.
4. Wouldn't those FS CB buyers deserve compensation?

To my mind, the answer to #4 is "yes". And to my mind, Tesla can't wiggle out of it by stating "we don't owe you a lightbar, because you never go off-road anyway".

If that makes sense, then you can make the exact same argument for HW3 owners:

1. Self-driving capability is a Desirable Feature (even if you never use it).
2. Tesla made representations that HW3 buyers would get that feature.
3. HW3 buyers never got self-driving capability.
4. Therefore HW3 buyers deserve compensation.

And to my mind, Tesla can't wiggle out of it by stating "we don't owe you self-driving capability, because you never bought FSD anyway."

Now admittedly, the compensation owed to each individual HW3 owner who did not buy FSD would be relatively low (because the relatively high cost of FSD would not be involved). The problem is that there a lot of HW3 owners out there who did not buy FSD (probably millions). So the total liability could still be significant.

No, your argument contains a logical fallacy.

If you ordered a truck with a lightbar, you are owed a lightbar.

If you buy a car without FSD, you don't get that capability at a later date, you got exactly what you ordered, a car that could have been purchased with FSD, but wasn't.

 

[mongo]

Anyone buying an HW3 vehicle in 2019 had good reason to believe that they were paying for FSD-capable hardware. They didn't get what they paid for.

They didn't pay for FSD functionality, did they?
Tesla said, "last chance to buy FSD", right?
Those with HW3 who bought FSD should expect an upgrade path (though to get nit picky, the feature set wording varied over time).

Sponsored