[hardwaresofton]

Agreed. We've asked for this.

I talked to a non-technical Tesla owner friend of mine and I was expressing the sentiment that I didn't want a Tesla because I didn't want to join the rent-extraction everything-is-a-SaaS world that Tesla (and just about every business) seems to be driving towards. His response was of course about how he's never had to pay for any upgrades or anything like that for his Tesla.

A lot of people have jumped on this train with us (the "techies") because some of said it was awesome and the best version of the future and it seems like a lot of people do not see where this track is leading and will be surprised when we get to the terminus.

(all puns are intended)

[mancerayder]

Other than the Acceleration Boost and Full Self-Driving options available for purchase, what's rent extraction with the Tesla? I mean they'd need to disable a feature and then charge you for it in a future release, I suppose.

Then again buy or lease a BMW and you'll need to pay a lot of money to the dealer for simple parts to be changed, because a, the parts are pricey, b, the parts are hard to access. The Tesla at least doesn't have that -hardware- issue.

I'm a recent Tesla owner. What's the worst case scenario you're envisaging ?

[mkhpalm]

> Then again buy or lease a BMW and you'll need to pay a lot of money to the dealer for simple parts to be changed, because a, the parts are pricey, b, the parts are hard to access. The Tesla at least doesn't have that -hardware- issue.

But you can buy parts for a BMW. Its not even an option to buy OEM or aftermarket parts with a Tesla. That simple fact cuts out a huge segment of the market from even considering one. You have the crowd that can afford to keep a late model car still under warranty (soccer moms, yuppies, suburbanites, etc) and then you have everybody else who drives used cars or runs them for business. That second group needs to be able to buy parts and the realistic ability to fix them themselves, independent shops, or fleet service. Without that teslas are disposable vehicles. Most people aren't going to buy a second wrecked tesla and park it in the side yard just so they can keep their daily driver running. They'll just buy a different car unless Tesla can sell theirs so cheap everybody will be able to buy another every couple years.

[mancerayder]

That's not true, and there are OEM modifications for Model 3s. And even, I hear, software mods. It'll probably do something terrible to your warranty but you can do aftermarket mods. I found some stores online by accident when searching something unrelated, and I've seen Model 3's that looked modded.

My point above was that talk to any BMW owner about maintenance costs and see if it's any better than the rent seeking concern around software above.

I'll give you a strike against Tesla if you want one, though. If I wreck my car or get it replaced, I lose Acceleration Boost because it's not tied to my account in any way.

[mkhpalm]

There are no licensed aftermarket parts makers for Tesla and you cannot buy parts from Tesla without being Tesla certified.

This is unusual and unique for auto manufacturers. And its the only thing like it other than other industries such as agriculture (e.g. John Deer). Normal federal laws require auto makers to produce or stock parts for a time period after manufacturer date. This is usually the reason you have licensed aftermarket parts from other makes. Its also the reason GM forced everybody to return all those EV1s since they didn't want to take the loss making those parts after the trial run. Federal law also requires standard interfaces for diagnostics and information such as OBD2. So both state or federal inspection can happen as well as automotive techs can keep the economy going when your vehicle breaks down far from a licensed dealer. The US isn't being weird here, almost every country has the same sorts of rules on the books.

Tesla has these "strange" and extremely unique exemptions from both. Not entirely sure how you get those since its extremely lucrative to have. GM would have probably let people keep their EV1s if they had them. You'd certainly see regular makes come to production with more popular concept cars and keep them true to the concept if they had them. Basically, every other make would love to do the same thing Tesla is doing right now. But for them, they have no choice but to play the uneven playing field if they want to enter the American market. So they have to remain more cautious and careful about what they do release into the wild.

You can "mod" anything but that is not buying new suspension components or even a windshields. And hacking it is no different than what farmers keep trying to do with their John Deer equipment. That is also why right-to-repair is such a big issue. What I can't understand is why nobody ever talks about Tesla there. They're probably the biggest offender.

[mancerayder]

> Tesla has these "strange" and extremely unique exemptions from both.

I'm curious why. I've heard that they're exempt from reporting reliability because of some legislative tie-in to emissions reporting. Is it similar to that?

[fiddlerwoaroof]

I’ve seen this a couple times and, whatever Tesla’s plans might be, the current Tesla lineup is not a “rent extraction” scheme: the only subscription is the option to pay for cell connectivity for media and a couple other things.

If anything, it’s traditional manufacturers like BMW ( https://www.businessinsider.com/bmw-subscription-model-for-f... ) that are pushing for this, not Tesla.

[judge2020]

With Tesla, the base Model 3 SR+ doesn't have rear heated seats enabled, but they're still in the car and you can purchase them after-the-fact for $300. Whether or not that's acceptable is up to you, but it's not like you paid for them up front, they just made it possible for you to pay for them later. It saves them from having to make another sku variation (which is expensive in manufacturing and logistics) and makes it so that adding it after-the-fact doesn't cost $500 in labor.

[InvertedRhodium]

This is also true of many manufacturers - a lot of the 'extras' that each trim level gets are just configurable settings in the ECU.

Personally I picked up a VCDS adapter for my VW GTI and was able to turn on things like a startup gauge sweep, automatic window closing when it detects rain, configure the puddle lights to turn on when the windows fold and heaps more.

[alphabettsy]

Everything you’ve listed is a preference that has nothing to do with trim level, not really the same as whether or not you have heated seats.

When you don’t pay for heated seats in a VW it doesn’t come with heated seats at all. Maybe the Tesla way is better? But the comparison isn’t one to one.

[tshaddox]

Yep, they wouldn’t include the heated seat hardware unless it was cheaper than having two types of seats.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

Interesting, I have a 2020 LR AWD, and I didn't realize/remember it came with rear heated seats. TIL.

[hardwaresofton]

You don't think this is a reaction to what Tesla is doing? I see this as manufacturers trying to get in on the wave that Tesla is starting but doing it awkwardly since they don't have a "acceleration" or "full self driving" mode to push.

The blurb at the top of the Tesla upgrades page (https://www.tesla.com/support/upgrades) feels like it would be a shot across the bow for any car company in the same premium car market that Tesla operates in. I really don't think this monetization model was considered heavily before Tesla existed. Info-tainment sure, but the rest of the car I don't think so.

[fiddlerwoaroof]

Tesla's upgrades are definitely new: between OTA firmware updates and a slow body refresh cycle, there is much less difference between a 2020 Model 3 and a 2021 Model 3 than between spaced Honda Accords. I don't really see, though, how this is fundamentally different from the way BMW, Mercedes, Porsche nickel-and-dime you for various packages at purchase time: if anything, it's better because it lets Tesla release features developed in 2021 to people who bought a car three years ago. But, as long as this doesn't turn into a subscription model. I don't really see the analogy to SaaS.

[hardwaresofton]

True, it's definitely not different in that aspect -- nickel and diming is certainly not new.

> But, as long as this doesn't turn into a subscription model. I don't really see the analogy to SaaS.

As long as it doesn't! It's also fully possible that the sum-total of changes that this future Tesla is pioneering will be a consumer positive, will be interesting to see how it turns out.

[echelon]

Are you really an owner if when you sell your car, the new owner doesn't get 100% of the functionality?

What about if you replace parts of the car yourself? (I guess that's not even possible?)

[fiddlerwoaroof]

It’s possible to repair Teslas, if you can get the parts: https://www.wbur.org/bostonomix/2019/04/08/with-blowtorches-...

It sounds like Massachusetts is pushing for laws to make it even easier: https://grist.org/politics/tesla-want-to-fix-your-own-massac...

[hardwaresofton]

So this reminds me of the dude that was doing repairs on teslas from a few years ago -- The Rogue Tesla Mechanic Resurrecting Salvaged Cars [0]. He runs a channel called Rich Rebuilds[1] (I'm not a subscriber) a company in New Hampshire that specializes in repairing Teslas, and has a recent video on his relationship with Tesla (and the community of fans)[2] (which I haven't seen yet, but watching now).

I don't follow this channel but I do not remember Tesla being particularly encouraging of the trend, similar to other defacto closed ecosystems. They're definitely not egregious but just a little bit closed-by-default.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuAMczraBIM

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfV0_wbjG8KJADuZT2ct4SA

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PWlkAZCojg

[hardwaresofton]

Well you'll need to take out your tin foil hat from under the desk but I think this is a boiling frogs situation. Today it's Acceleration Boost and Full Self-Driving but tomorrow it will be smaller things.

To be fair to Tesla, infotainment systems were already heading in this direction, but they have a well established after market and most of the time it's very easy for people to refuse the option and install their own (with Apple/Google/etc integration). Tesla didn't invent this, but the move from just an add-on to what some might consider core "car" functionality seems to me like it can be attributed to Tesla. There is an argument to be had over whether those features are core or not -- are you selling a car that has better acceleration or not? Does it self drive or not? The answer becomes a maybe only because of Tesla's choices, and marks a shift in the thinking. For example turbo'd cars have to get their turbos tuned dynamically -- imagine a world where you have to pay for your car's turbo tuning as a service every month.

> Then again buy or lease a BMW and you'll need to pay a lot of money to the dealer for simple parts to be changed, because a, the parts are pricey, b, the parts are hard to access. The Tesla at least doesn't have that -hardware- issue.

I agree that the current luxury market has a lot of fat. Tesla has come a long way in reducing the fat (the amount of vertical integration they've done is amazing), but my problem is that I don't think the choice to buy an option that isn't doing this monetization model will be around much longer in the worst case.

> I'm a recent Tesla owner. What's the worst case scenario you're envisaging ?

I mean realistically, a world where cars are just another rent-seeking vehicle for conglomerates. For most of history you could buy a car that just worked, and eventually it would become an asset to you and "pay itself off". Cars that never pay themselves off are great at first, until you hit the inflection point where they would have paid themselves off. In a world where most cars (and/or functionality) are leases and thus rent-able machinery, it feels kind of like kicking the ladder in a way that's hard for me to pin down.

Further down the road in my worst case scenario, non-self-driving cars are outlawed all together for safety reasons (once the tech is down it will very likely be hard to argue for letting people put others in danger).

[EDIT] - Just to add for people who have never dealt with turbo-ing their own cars or getting "tunes" for turbo setups, you tune turbo setups on cars and essentially get a golden set of data that works for a certain performance profile. This is necessary because altitude, pressure, specifics of your setup can cause changes in what the software should be telling the components to do at any given time or place in the "power band" (your tachometer, roughly).

This is the kind of thing that can be a dark art since you could optimize nearly endlessly and bad settings are dangerous but once you do it can be reproduced for near free given similar inputs (and of course, dealer-made cars are very similar inputs by design). It would be a perfect thing to SaaS-ify -- most performance-concerned consumers wouldn't think twice about paying $xx or even $xxx a month for a decent tune (assuming a decent general tune wasn't free). Then you have to do things like make sure they're not hobbling base tunes to make premium models more attractive (this has happened in the past already IIRC).

[na85]

>non-self-driving cars are outlawed

That's decades away for places like Canada and Scandinavia. Outside of California where you actually have snow, the self driving doesn't seem very impressive when it only works for like 40% of the year