I have a ton of early Cybertruck reservations and want to partner up for a business

[JBee]

I’m just completely baffled why you think any solution to someone selling trucks or… whatever would involve software. It makes zero sense and your “2 click fork” makes even less sense.

There are simple, nearly free ways Tesla can deal with bad customers that involve zero developer time.

It takes two clicks on github to create a new fork, and I imagine Tesla would use a similar process before merging code into the build they send out for OTA. This means it is not hard to create a dedicated fork of software to accommodate "special" operating conditions if the need arises, or if they choose to do so. Unlike what you claim. Just like they have done to "unlock" battery capacity when there's a fire or hurricane, they could, if they wanted to, do the opposite. It is not hard, and it can be done retrospectively at any time, even after a sale.

I'm still not saying they would, rather they could if they wanted too, if other avenues failed to achieve the results they were looking for.

Sponsored

 

[Ogre]

It takes two clicks on github to create a new fork, and I imagine Tesla would use a similar process before merging code into the build they send out for OTA. This means it is not hard to create a dedicated fork of software to accommodate "special" operating conditions if the need arises, or if they choose to do so. Unlike what you claim. Just like they have done to "unlock" battery capacity when there's a fire or hurricane, they could, if they wanted to, do the opposite. It is not hard, and it can be done retrospectively at any time, even after a sale.

I'm still not saying they would, rather they could if they wanted too, if other avenues failed to achieve the results they were looking for.

Once you create a fork, you have to maintain it. If you are just going to stop updating the code, there is no point in forking it at all, just stop shipping updates. This whole idea of doing anything in software for punishing users or whatever is stupid.

Usually your weird tilting at windmills makes a little sense. This is all just nonsense.

 

[JBee]

I didn't demonize anyone. Third Way is bipartisan. At any rate, states have more power to change crime rates and deadliness than cities. And states as a category are not more likely run by a specific party for demographic reasons.

-Crissa

Just because the link was still specific about tying Red states to murder rates. As we know 99% of statistics are made up... a better metric would have been actually disclosing the party affiliation of each perpetrator, not the state as a whole, and then somehow linking those values to their resulting actions. At a minimum the welfare state of each case would need to be addressed.

I think this is always the same issue: Sides generating non-coherent models of unrelated consequence and behavior.

 

[JBee]

Once you create a fork, you have to maintain it. If you are just going to stop updating the code, there is no point in forking it at all, just stop shipping updates. This whole idea of doing anything in software for punishing users or whatever is stupid.

Usually your weird tilting at windmills makes a little sense. This is all just nonsense.

You're funny, but maybe this helps you understand the workflow:

As for using software to enable and disable features, Tesla does this all the time.
You know that radar thing and now the ultrasonic one?

The reason for the statement was simply that Tesla has more influence over your vehicle after your purchase than most think, and how that differs to more common ICE vehicles that are still ramping up OTA capability. I'm not sure how that is making your head spin.

 

[CyberGus]

Tesla has a legal obligation to prevent reselling. But why?

They must, because of the direct-sales model. In most states, direct sales are allowed only because there are no dealerships in the state. If someone buys 10 Teslas for the sole purpose of reselling them, then one could make the case that this amounts to a "dealership" and jeopardize Tesla's standing.

 

[papajamaliciousness]

I have not seen reports that Tesla turns off software updates to spite customers it has an issue with. That would potentially open them up to liability. They do not even remotely shut off stolen vehicles.

If they think you are reselling they will cancel your reservation--that's what the reservation contract says:

"No Resellers; Disconnuaon; Cancellaon. Tesla and its affiliates sell cars directly to end-consumers, and we may unilaterally cancel any order that we believe has been made with a view toward resale of the Vehicle or that has otherwise been made in bad faith. We may also cancel your pre-order and refund your Pre-Order Payment if we discon'nue a product, feature or op'on a5er the 'me you place your pre-order or if we determine that you are ac'ng in bad faith."

(sorry for artifacts picked up when copying & pasting the quote above)

So the problem for earthman is the busybody at the cybertruck owners' club who reports him to the "authorities" at tesla, his problem is not them using the ota updates to minority report his vehicles. You guys are getting a little too excited about turning this into a science fiction story. And based on what earthman is saying here, the busybody would have to file a false report to accuse him of reselling when he explicitly said he doesn't want to... or tesla would have to come to the conclusion that earthman is lying about his intended use of the Cybertrucks before they would cancel his orders..

This does raise the issue that a large percentage of the reservations are going to fall through one way or the other. I can't imagine the failure rate for reservations is going to be less than 10%. I bet it will be about 30 or 40%. The prices are going to go up after all, also, and even when people made their reservations a lot of them were made on a wing and a prayer at the then stated Cybertruck prices.

 

[earthman]

I have not seen reports that Tesla turns off software updates to spite customers it has an issue with. That would potentially open them up to liability. They do not even remotely shut off stolen vehicles.

If they think you are reselling they will cancel your reservation--that's what the reservation contract says:

"No Resellers; Disconnuaon; Cancellaon. Tesla and its affiliates sell cars directly to end-consumers, and we may unilaterally cancel any order that we believe has been made with a view toward resale of the Vehicle or that has otherwise been made in bad faith. We may also cancel your pre-order and refund your Pre-Order Payment if we discon'nue a product, feature or op'on a5er the 'me you place your pre-order or if we determine that you are ac'ng in bad faith."

(sorry for artifacts picked up when copying & pasting the quote above)

So the problem for earthman is the busybody at the cybertruck owners' club who reports him to the "authorities" at tesla, his problem is not them using the ota updates to minority report his vehicles. You guys are getting a little too excited about turning this into a science fiction story. And based on what earthman is saying here, the busybody would have to file a false report to accuse him of reselling when he explicitly said he doesn't want to... or tesla would have to come to the conclusion that earthman is lying about his intended use of the Cybertrucks before they would cancel his orders..

This does raise the issue that a large percentage of the reservations are going to fall through one way or the other. I can't imagine the failure rate for reservations is going to be less than 10%. I bet it will be about 30 or 40%. The prices are going to go up after all, also, and even when people made their reservations a lot of them were made on a wing and a prayer at the then stated Cybertruck prices.

Really good clear points. Thanks.

 

[CyberGus]

the busybody would have to file a false report to accuse him of reselling when he explicitly said he doesn't want to... or tesla would have to come to the conclusion that earthman is lying about his intended use of the Cybertrucks before they would cancel his orders...

No one is threatening to "report" to a non-existent department at Tesla. Regardless, public posts are not privileged, and undoubtedly there are Tesla employees on this forum.

Tesla has no problem with fleet buyers, unless they become resellers. They would know of any resales because each car is automatically registered to the owner upon purchase, and a new owner would transfer the account (otherwise the prior owner could track the vehicle, remotely unlock it, etc.).

 

[CyberGus]

The post-COVID, inverted-depreciation curve encouraged a number of owners to become flippers and get perma-banned.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/tesla-blacklist.248489/

My first Tesla experience was from a Turo rental, and there are plenty of people that own Tesla fleets for this purpose; they'll even sell off the cars as they get older, which is fine. No one has a specific threshold of ownership longevity, though. I would plan on keeping each vehicle for at least 1 year.

 

[SwampNut]

My first Tesla experience was from a Turo rental,

Some of those are terrible, too. I used to think Turo rentals would be a good sales tool, but didn't realize how many idiots are out there renting them out. A friend recently rented a Y and commented that there is absolutely no way he'd ever own a Tesla based on that experience. He said if he didn't already know me, he'd think Teslas are awful.

(Terrible seat covers, features and speed locked out, tires not well balanced, some kind of AP issue, etc etc.)

 

[Ogre]

You're funny, but maybe this helps you understand the workflow:

As for using software to enable and disable features, Tesla does this all the time.
You know that radar thing and now the ultrasonic one?

The reason for the statement was simply that Tesla has more influence over your vehicle after your purchase than most think, and how that differs to more common ICE vehicles that are still ramping up OTA capability. I'm not sure how that is making your head spin.

You have no clue how annoying “Internet Experts“ are when talking to people who deal with this shit on a daily basis.

A fork is created every time you check code out and make a change.

You don’t even need GitHub. Or Git. Creating a fork is not the problem. The problem is now you have 2 code bases to maintain; one of which is completely pointless.

You’ve spent 3 posts delving on stupid trivia and have spent zero effort explaining WHY you would do this stupid thing.

 

[papajamaliciousness]

No one is threatening to "report" to a non-existent department at Tesla. Regardless, public posts are not privileged, and undoubtedly there are Tesla employees on this forum.

Tesla has no problem with fleet buyers, unless they become resellers. They would know of any resales because each car is automatically registered to the owner upon purchase, and a new owner would transfer the account (otherwise the prior owner could track the vehicle, remotely unlock it, etc.).

I did not say someone would, I was just making the point that the potential problem for him is Tesla refusing his reservations, not turning off his updates.

 

[JBee]

You have no clue how annoying “Internet Experts“ are when talking to people who deal with this shit on a daily basis.

A fork is created every time you check code out and make a change.

You don’t even need GitHub. Or Git. Creating a fork is not the problem. The problem is now you have 2 code bases to maintain; one of which is completely pointless.

You’ve spent 3 posts delving on stupid trivia and have spent zero effort explaining WHY you would do this stupid thing.

You brought up changing the OTA and made it out to be difficult to "change", which in reality you're now confirming it's not, and already has the features to disable the vehicle etc. You only would maintain a different fork if you did not merge it back. Example: They don't have a different fork for every windscreen wiper speed, they have one merged one, once they've coded all the speeds. (that's if you weren't smart enough to code different speeds in the first place lol)
Your argument is just bogus.

And I'll say it again what I meant by the comment:

Tesla has OTA. Most ICE do not. Tesla have reach into your vehicles functionality after sale. Most ICE do not.

Tesla "CAN" change things "IF" they "WANTED" to.
There is a difference in how these cases can and will be managed.

In the context of:

Either way you'll only get as far as your next OTA if Teslas not happy about what you are doing.

Honestly, I'd like to see who wins a case in court given the size of Tesla's legal team.

And:

I haven't read the terms but I'm pretty certain it will have a few catch all clauses that let's Tesla use it's discretion against misuse and affords them immunity from prosecution.

So if they did disable your Tesla somehow, or just a function of it, via software OTA, do you think anyone would have a chance against them to seek relief from the court? Not just for reselling, for any behavior they deem unfit, like disabling/excluding FSD and Robotaxi etc?

--

The question here specifically, is how will Tesla enforce the "legitimate" use of more than one CT order by a single customer, and how after the sale of such goods can they even enforce the resale of them?

Not fulfilling multiple funded orders at all seems very unlikely and not really beneficial to Tesla in any way, provided the vehicles are used and displace ICE. So once the orders have been fulfilled and the vehicles delivered, what exactly can Tesla currently do to enforce their "no resell policy", except ban them from purchasing under that name again?

This is a general challenge to the definition of ownership, and what rights the purchaser has at all. I'm not advocating either side, just questioning what is legally allowed and not, and if a citizen even has the chance to defend his rights in court.

Sponsored