Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by andykellr 3660 days ago
I don't get the controversy.

You may have a 75 kWh in your car, but you didn't pay for it. You paid for a 60 kWh so that is what you get to use.

Tesla has merely optimized the logistics a the battery upgrade, pre-delivering it and pre-installing it, doing 99% of the work at no charge. When you pay for it, they can make the upgrade as easy as an in-app purchase.

4 comments

My only complaint would be that the extra weight of the batteries reduces my range to no benefit to me, should I keep my car at the S60 level.
Is there supposed to be a /s at the end?

Isn't the price kind of arbitrary? Would you accept this with any other product? Like buying a cheaper house because some of the rooms are walled off, or a hard drive that has a few GB of unremovable data, until you pay more.

Well, let's say I don't have any children, but I think I might have 2-3 in the next 5-10 years. I would definitely buy a small house with a nice master at a lower price that I can instantly upgrade later, especially if I don't actually see the walled off rooms and the footprint of my house just somehow magically changes in software. It sounds awesome and I would definitely sign up for that.
Yup, I'd do that in an instant. In fact, I wish houses were sold this way. I could by a 500k house for 100k with 1br, 1ba, kitchen, living room probably right out of school. In 5 years when a kid or 3 comes along, pay for the extra bedrooms, another bath, hell, maybe even a basement.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

People don't make "rational" decisions in the face of perceived injustice.

Strikes me the correct thing to do - unless you regularly need to drive >200 miles, in which case the decision makes itself - is in fact purchase the 60KWh version and just not buy the upgrade. The battery wear leveling must use the extra capacity, presumably? - otherwise the remote upgrade would be a dicey proposition, surely. So it's not like you're missing out.