FSD v13 and Hardware 4 Partition Limit

[SCTesla]

No friend, the “real answer” is that you’ve been blocked. Look at the number count you can’t see message #67 and apparently others because you’re not allowed to see the content from that member.

I know that's the real reason, I was joking. It just looks funny from my perspective.

Sponsored

 

[JCERRN]

It sounds like @dalton108 EXPECTS Tesla to follow through with the concept of “your car will be able to drive itself” promise made by the CEO, and intends to try to ensure that they do, regardless of what that means legally. It sounds like @REM is interpreting the TOS and what he understands about living software to mean that the promise holds no legal standing and is unenforceable. Its a classic agree to disagree until a judge says otherwise scenario. I hope a conclusion about this is made in the future.

i was reading an article that indicated tesla is “not doing the right thing” when it comes to upgrading fsd hardware and transferring software packages on older cars a few months ago. Interesting read.

A whole lot of people have come to expect companies to “feel” but they dont. Any perception of “feeling” relates to marketing and budget. Thats it. A company may legally be a “person” but it by its own nature, is not.

https://electrek.co/2025/01/25/tesl...ight-thing-about-full-self-driving-transfers/

Even EM has made a statement on the limitations of aging hardware: “The truth is that we’re gonna have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those who have bought Full Self Driving, and that is the honest answer,” it will be “absolutely painful and difficult.”

i just was hoping that hw4 would at least get to see the initial release of USFSD. Sounds like maybe not.

 

[dalton108]

It sounds like @dalton108 EXPECTS Tesla to follow through with the concept of “your car will be able to drive itself” promise made by the CEO, and intends to try to ensure that they do, regardless of what that means legally. It sounds like @REM is interpreting the TOS and what he understands about living software to mean that the promise holds no legal standing and is unenforceable. Its a classic agree to disagree until a judge says otherwise scenario. I hope a conclusion about this is made in the future.

i was reading an article that indicated tesla is “not doing the right thing” when it comes to upgrading fsd hardware and transferring software packages on older cars a few months ago. Interesting read.

A whole lot of people have come to expect companies to “feel” but they dont. Any perception of “feeling” relates to marketing and budget. Thats it. A company may legally be a “person” but it by its own nature, is not.

https://electrek.co/2025/01/25/tesl...ight-thing-about-full-self-driving-transfers/

Even EM has made a statement on the limitations of aging hardware: “The truth is that we’re gonna have to upgrade people’s Hardware 3 computer for those who have bought Full Self Driving, and that is the honest answer,” it will be “absolutely painful and difficult.”

i just was hoping that hw4 would at least get to see the initial release of USFSD. Sounds like maybe not.

I appreciate your effort to summarize the discussion and the spirit in which you’ve offered it. However, your summary doesn’t accurately reflect my stance. To clarify:

My position is not based on statements made by Elon Musk or any marketing materials. It’s grounded in the specific terms of my purchase agreement with Tesla. That agreement stipulated that the vehicle I purchased would be “Full Self-Driving capable,” which I (and any competent/properly instructed trier of fact will) interpret to mean capable of achieving full autonomy.

If HW4 is insufficient to realize full autonomy, then, under the terms of our agreement, Tesla will be obligated to upgrade my vehicle with the necessary hardware to fulfill that promise. This obligation arises from the contract itself, not from any contemporaneous or subsequent public statements or representations made by Tesla’s executives.

Corporate personage is not about anthropomorphizing businesses and this issue is not about feelings.

It’s about basic contract law. Offer, acceptance, and performance or lack there of (i.e. breach).

?? I referenced this comment pages ago. He’s not being magnanimous here. He’s stating his current legal predicament which is a direct consequence of what he offered to prospective buyers.

Though this is a slightly different cohort of people (with slightly different factual circumstances), the analysis is precisely the same with the exact same consequence … as I have explained, ad nauseam, above.

 

[JCERRN]

I appreciate your effort to summarize the discussion and the spirit in which you’ve offered it. However, your summary doesn’t accurately reflect my stance. To clarify:

My position is not based on statements made by Elon Musk or any marketing materials. It’s grounded in the specific terms of my purchase agreement with Tesla. That agreement stipulated that the vehicle I purchased would be “Full Self-Driving capable,” which I (and any competent/properly instructed trier of fact will) interpret to mean capable of achieving full autonomy.

If HW4 is insufficient to realize full autonomy, then, under the terms of our agreement, Tesla will be obligated to upgrade my vehicle with the necessary hardware to fulfill that promise. This obligation arises from the contract itself, not from any contemporaneous or subsequent public statements or representations made by Tesla’s executives.

Corporate personage is not about anthropomorphizing businesses and this issue is not about feelings.

It’s about basic contract law. Offer, acceptance, and performance or lack there of (i.e. breach).

I understand your position. Thanks for clarifying. I think Tesla’s flaw was naming their driver assistance software “Full Self Driving”. Its like calling “almond milk” “milk”. Or a store brand “frozen dairy desert product” “ice cream”. Its a misnomer. And that in of itself is misleading.
As you describe, in your opinion, your car should be “capable” of “full self driving”. I think the company would argue in the future that yes, your car, when purchased, was “capable” of accessing and utilizing the driver assistance software package that is named “Full Self Driving”, but that your hardware package has become obsolete and no longer supports the software in its current build.
i hope for every owner’s sake, that the company continues to upgrade hardware in a way that is compatible with aging vehicles into the foreseeable future, either as a gratuity for those who purchased the software, or at a fee for those who didnt. We all want a vehicle that can for all intents and purposes drive itself.

Its in an interesting concept, i was reading this about John Deer Tractors too recently-it was a right to repair article. customers purchase the hardware, but only a license to use the software. Unfortunately companies have taken advantage of this concept Which makes the hardware essentially useless without the software, forcing customers to continue to purchase or upgrade hardware that is capable of operating the software. It also make it practically impossible for customers or independent repair shops to maintain their own hardware in an operable state without the explicit support of the OEM

 

[CyberTexas]

If i am getting CT, then i am hiring Dalton as my lawyer…..

 

[dalton108]

I think the company would argue in the future that yes, your car, when purchased, was “capable” of accessing and utilizing the driver assistance software package that is named “Full Self Driving”, but that your hardware package has become obsolete and no longer supports the software in its current build.

This is the very dog that will not hunt. I’ll say that again, this dog will not hunt! The add-ons caveats rebranding all of those things are not part of my agreement. Updated modified TOS? POUND SAND! The problem that REM has which I described above as “mixing and matching terms” is that this is not a promise about software it is a promise about hardware which would be capable of doing a thing that was explained in plain English. If it isn’t capable friends, it’s a breach! You can get as cute with words as you like to weasel out of it, but it ain’t gonna happen.

I already told you guys where the tell was. 09/10/24, Tesla updated their website to change what they were offering from “full self driving” to “full self driving (supervised).” This WAS NOT marketing! It was not anything other than legal (i.e. Tesla’s legal department) finally getting somebody to understand (what they had most certainly been saying before) after they got their hands spanked in court as I outlined above.

You guys can believe that fat meat is greasy or you cannot believe that fat meat is not greasy. Only one of these positions is correct and it’s not a close call. ??‍

Anybody who thinks they know more about this than me go forth and be well. ?

But it will go down precisely as I have said it will. *Get your crackers!

Colloquialism from my mom, “If I tell you that the moon is made of muenster cheese; get your crackers!”

 

[CyberGus]

Maybe later on you will revisit and see how rude and condescending this is.

No one wants a demure lawyer.

 

[Outdoors]

Well after purchasing each car with FSD at purchase. I yes am dissapointed. Well over a decade, but goalposts have been moved more than a thousand yards, and more than ten times.

Tesla will be held accountable. Either via goodwill, or courtroom. Hopefully the good portion. It is pretty clear that the contract has yet to be fulfilled on FSD. In the past a long upgrade process has endured prior to full blown litigation via conversations like these.

Have to agree with the lawyers on this one. Yet we aren't there. Tesla still has a ball to play with. The one of public opinion, and engineering.

Everyone should drink some Mate and think about it. Elon included. Might provide some focus.

 

[dalton108]

No one wants a demure lawyer.

And if they do, they’ll need to find somebody else. Sorry, never sorry.

 

[REM]

I wonder if tesla will continue to offer hardware upgrades at a fee for those who did not buy FSD as a package? If i recall, they did until basically the latest computer no longer fit in the car in question.

Good question. I bet the number of people who upgrade outside of purchasing the hardware agreement with FSD are very, very few.

 

[REM]

It sounds like @REM is interpreting the TOS and what he understands about living software to mean that the promise holds no legal standing and is unenforceable.

Not quite my stance. When I ask people if they read the purchase agreement, they will eventually find that it doesn't promise you specific levels of automotive autonomy.

Most people fail to recognize that the phrase "full SELF-drive actually comes from the movie 'Demolition Man', and specific to the scene, the character actually takes over in manual driving.

So there is it. FSD is a term that is accurate for the function IF you understand the context. Much like "autopilot" is actually the most accurate description of what it does.

 

[dalton108]

Not quite my stance. When I ask people if they read the purchase agreement, they will eventually find that it doesn't promise you specific levels of automotive autonomy.

Most people fail to recognize that the phrase "full SELF-drive actually comes from the movie 'Demolition Man', and specific to the scene, the character actually takes over in manual driving.

So there is it. FSD is a term that is accurate for the function IF you understand the context. Much like "autopilot" is actually the most accurate description of what it does.

Yeah, but I bet you don’t know what the three *shells are for!

 

[REM]

The add-ons caveats rebranding all of those things are not D! The problem that REM has which I described above as “mixing and matching terms” is that this is not a promise about software it is a promise about hardware which would be capable of doing a thing that was explained in plain English. If it isn’t capable friends, it’s a breach! You can get as cute with words as you like to weasel out of it, but it ain’t gonna happen.

Since inception, the name FSD has been a reference to the movie Demolition Man. Go watch that scene.

And since picking that name, Tesla has made it abundantly clear that FSD is not feature complete autonomy. They explicitly specify when you click "I agree that I understand the following" before your FSD software is activated:

Meaning your idea that FSD is somehow "full autonomy" is debunked right there by the very words of Tesla themselves.

 

[REM]

Yeah, but I bet you don’t know what the three shelves are for!

In the context of marketing?

 

[dalton108]

Since inception, the name FSD has been a reference to the movie Demolition Man. Go watch that scene.

I know the scene like the back of my hand!

In the context of marketing?

Come on man, you can’t be quoting the movie as your legal foundation and then be thrown off by a stupid AutoCorrect error from Siri!

Sponsored