Researchers jailbreak a Tesla to get free in-car feature upgrades::A group of researchers found a way to hack a Tesla’s hardware with the goal of getting free in-car upgrades, such as heated rear seats.
“you wouldn’t download an in-car feature”
I’m amazed that it’s legal for a car company to sell you something, and then after you own it, remotely disable xyz aspects of the functionality unless you pay them more. How can that be legal? I own the car, it’s MINE now, how can I not use every single thing that’s in it?
Same reason it’s legal for HP to brick your printer if you use third party ink. You violated their shitty TOS that none of us read because it’s 80 pages of legalese, but you agreed to it.
hmmm yes I suppose that’s true. Okay so let me rephrase: I’m amazed it’s legal for a car manufacturer to even HAVE a TOS like that when you purchase a car. It shouldn’t be legal to write language like “you are purchasing this but agreeing that you can’t use it” … wtf?
I agree that it’s wrong, but I don’t think, at least in the U.S., that there’s any law against it. Like I said, HP does the exact same thing with their printers. I certainly would like for it to be illegal.
Lets be fair
TOSs you need two lawyers and an ai chatbot to explain to you, shouldnt be legal vs regular citizens.
They cannot expect anyone to read all TOS they get thrown in their face throughout a lifetime. Let alone understand them. Its often not written super clearly and not all users can even read the language very well to begin with.
I really wonder if there’s a way to use LLMs just to point out every concerning thing in a EULA/TOS
To what end? Probably every eula/tos you click through has concerning shit that is against your best interest. Either you use the product or you don’t.
You can give this a try
I mean you are correct to some extent. But I’m curious, how does this not happen in a system where the state has full control? The only difference is the consumer has no other choices and the “politics” don’t have to be paid for as they are already fully in control.
Unless you mean to say that by the good graces of the government they’d never do that in a state run economy because it’s morally wrong. In which case… Lol
State-run authoritarian economies generally aren’t so money-obsessed that they pull weird shit like this, but generally suffer from drastic inequality, distribution inefficiency, and a general lack of freedom and innovation. The most effective economic models from what I’ve seen are hybrid models, with a regulated market system with some nationalized industries. Morally though, I also believe that a nation’s economic system should be democratic and that people should have a say in how their workplace is run and who their workplace leadership should be.
It’s a bit inevitable. There’s a market for a range of features - i.e. some people don’t want to pay extra for extra features. But it’s simpler (i.e. cheaper) to produce all models with the same hardware. So, to fill the market, some features are simply disabled in software.
Imagine buying a house but you didn’t want to pay extra so one room is padlocked, or several windows boarded up, or a pool walled off.
If it brought down the price of the house, people who didn’t need those things would absolutely take the deal, and that’s the point.
So, when Tesla installed a rear seat heater module that’s unusable by the car owner because they didn’t pay for it, is the heater module actually legally owned by the car owner (even though it doesn’t work), or is it still owned by Tesla? If the module is legally owned by the car owner, does Tesla in this case only sell ability to turn on the heater module?
Oftentimes it’s done because it’s cheaper, though oftentimes it’s actually more expensive but they calculate that money from licenses post initial sale gets them more revenue and margin in the end anyway.
Still, even if it always was cheaper for the manufacturer this way, the point here is companies should not be able to control something you physically own once you have purchased it. It’s a dangerous precedent to set and things like this will creep into more and more products if we let it.
consumer activism, rich people that think they’re helping the world and feel good about themselves by buying a brand new electric car. also most people are just technologically illiterate so yea.
I’m not defending this practice (it’s gross), but people and critics almost universally love many people and critics who actually own/drive Teslas love them.
So, you’re kind of mischaracterizing them as “worse than other cars.”
edit: it’s unsurprising that this comment is downvoted in a thread hellbent on shitting on Tesla. I don’t know what I expected.
This is an interesting comment to make. For years I’ve seen people shitting all over musk and Tesla, specifically because they have a ton of build quality issues
No, it’s not “almost universal”. Even before musk becomes public idiot number one, there was a lot of hate for these cars
Maybe my opinion is dated/anecdotal.
My belief re: critics comes from early days of Tesla, when the concept of a fast ev was very foreign to most auto journalists. So, most of the reviews were something along the lines of “I wanted to hate this car, but goddamn if it isn’t faster than insert critic’s favorite sports car and way more useful too. I’m converted.”
Re: people in general, I’m basing it off of people I know who own them. That’s admittedly a very small sample size (~a dozen), but their opinions are the polar opposite of what you’ll find on random Internet forums. There’s definitely selection bias going on in both directions.
For what it’s worth, I’m very aware of the QA issues and no I don’t own a Tesla myself.
…people and critics almost universally love Teslas…
Not sure where you get that from. Elon and Tesla cult members might have you think so but a Google search on Teslas reputation show differently. Consuser affairs showing about 60% positive.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/tesla_motors.html?#sort=top_reviews&filter=1
Most car manufacturers charge money for those kind of upgrades. The difference is they specifically build or do not build the features into the car. If Tesla doesn’t charge meaningfully more and if they do not turn it into a subscription, I wouldn’t knock them for it.
There’s a lot to bitch at Tesla about, but being able to decide after the fact that you want a heated steering wheel isn’t one of them. FSD being bullshit even if it was free (and it is far from free!), the refusal to allow Android Auto/CarPlay, the intentionally rosy range estimates, the association with Musk… those are what I’d focus on. Unlockable steering wheel heating is not an issue.
but being able to decide after the fact that you want a heated steering wheel isn’t one of them.
No one is bitching about being able to decide that you want a heated steering wheel. You can decide to install it on literally any car brand or model.
People are bitching about the hardware that they have paid for and they own being locked behind by a software paywall. This would cause a riot with practically any other consumer electronics. Imagine if the fingerprint scanner on your smartphone was an extra $50 to unlock? Or quick charge being an extra $75?
That would be the most anti-consumer horseshit we’ve seen, and that’s exactly what Tesla is doing.
Kind of like adding a little chip to the charger cable of a cellphone that identifies the charger as a brand cable and without that chip, the phone won’t charge or use the perfectly good cable for data transfer. If that sounds familiar, it’s because that’s what Apple did/does.
E: fixed autocorrect
It’s not even extra to unlock in some cases. They want a monthly subscription. They want you to own nothing. They want you to “license” your car from them and then turn your shit off if you miss a payment.
It’s all rent seeking bullshit and I’ll ride the terrible public transit instead of buying another car if those are my options the next time I go to buy a car.
Other brands are experimenting with this too. BMW already has features that you have to pay to unlock as well. See https://basic-tutorials.com/news/coding-companies-want-to-unlock-additional-features-from-bmw/ for example.
Imagine if the fingerprint scanner on your smartphone was an extra $50 to unlock? Or quick charge being an extra $75?
Or not including a charger, or doing away with useful features like removable batteries or 1/8" Jack’s so you have to buy new earbuds… shit
Elon is pulling this shit because it will probably work
Also… what happens if the heater breaks? Are you still charged for fixing it or is that included in the subscription?
You know what? I am going to just maintain my old economy car until I die. I am out of the system. I don’t want a touchscreen or a subscription or vendor locking. I want a machine that takes me from place A to place B when mass transit or my bicycle isn’t practical. That’s it. You people enjoy your car as a service bullshit model. Don’t come crying to me when the batteries light on fire and the brakes require you to upgrade flash.
You did not understand what I wrote if your retort is on the “car as a service” subject.
good. software locks are anti human and anti consumer. everyone inherently feels ripped off by them, but the more capitalist minded think ‘oh that’s the company’s right to do’
if it’s my property in my house I can fuck with it to do whatever I want
Unfortunately because most of this is locked behind DRM you may be subject to crimes best described by someone else as “felony contempt of business model”.
So you think you should be able to pay for a base model and get all the features of the top of the line model? Try that at a Toyota dealership and let me know how that goes.
Flipping a bit in software doesn’t cost Tesla anything, the hardware is already installed.
It would be totally different if Tesla didn’t install the hardware by default, and you had to pay to have it put in.
I think that if they’re letting those cars go out the factory door with the parts for heated rear seats, then I own those too, and I’ll do with them what I please.
At Toyota, you pay for the premium shit to get installed, you most certainly do not pay a fee (recurring or otherwise) for them to turn it on.
I’m actually really glad that Toyota hasn’t locked their active safety features (Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Assist, Frontal Collision Braking) behind vehicle trim paywalls. That stuff is standard on all their vehicles now.
Unlike others cough Dodge cough where is still a premium upcharge for driver assistance technology that can potentially save your life on the road. I get charging more for heated seats and whatnot, but it’s unethical in this instance because the car is certainly able to (on a hardware level) turn on its active safety features without doing a complete retrofit.
Yes! Back to jailbreaking!
