Tesla's new model S - now with crippleware?

[Grench]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/06/09/tesla-model-s-60-60d-returns/

So - person buys a car. Person is locked out of major features of the equipment that they already paid for unless they buy a software update. Odds are the 'unlock code' is an encryption key?

Doesn't that seem out of character for a supposed new-era technology company?

 

[liveunderwater]

Yikes, that there, for me, rules out doing any future business with Tesla.

 

[levi]

So this car includes a 75kWh battery pack, but the system software only uses 60kWh of it before reporting it's empty? You can pay to unlock the extra 15kWh later if you need to. Sounds like something to barter with at the dealers (assuming that even happens with Tesla), but to be honest, I'd probably want an entirely new battery, not an old one that's been unlocked if I was upgrading after a few years.

 

[ible]

depends on the backlash. rich people going to rich hotels apparently don't mind paying extra for wifi, even if it's standard in every other hotel.

i can almost understand it however, from a point of view that you never really want these battery packs to drain all the way to zero... so maybe this lock is actually a feature?

 

[Klumpen]

DRM everywhere

 

[PowerGod]

the official site lists that option as € 9.600

anyway it doesn't tell if it's really just a software upgrade of they will just change the battery

 

[liveunderwater]

the official site lists that option as € 9.600

anyway it doesn't tell if it's really just a software upgrade of they will just change the battery

"Tesla added a 75kWh battery pack to the car and the extra power and range can be unlocked via a software update if the owner needs to do so. Of course, there's an added cost involved for the update, but exact pricing for that hasn't been revealed."

I would call that a statement. One that says the battery is crippled until you pay for a software update.

 

[vcoleiro1]

Not sure what the issue is. Tesla used to make a cheap model with a 60kWh battery that didn't sell enough to continue making the lower 60kWh battery line. So they got rid of the cheap 60kWh model

Now they have introduced a cheap Tesla S option again, and advertise it as having 60kWh of battery. It really has a 75kWh battery, as remember I said they had to get rid of the 60kWh battery line as it wasn't commercially viable to produce a 60kWh battery line.
They must figure that enoough people will S/W upgrade down the line(to unlock the 15kWh addition) to make up for the loss of putting in the bigger battery. It's actually a pro, not a con

 

[kuru]

Dunno how far this applies to Tesla, but here's what I think I know: Nigh every automobile company uses encrypted encodings to change even the most basic settings in e.g. their cars' engine or comfort control units. Say you run an authorized Volkswagen repair shop. In order to do basically anything that just touches software, which by today's standard is pratically everything, you have to get the official diagnosis apparatus. This will cost you approx. 10.000 Euros per year. Every encoding, say your customer wants to upgrade their car stereo to s better model with navigation, is purchased from VW, downloaded over the net w/encryption and then applied to the car's systems.

 

[rygD]

I am waiting for them to release one with a 1.21GW battery.

 

[vcoleiro1]

Nah, I'll wait for the Mr Fusion model

 

[rygD]

Nah, I'll wait for the Mr Fusion model

I will get a hover conversion if it doesn't come stock.

 

[WizardStan]

It's not like there isn't precedent for this; CPU manufacturers have been selling capable chips intentionally locked at lower frequencies for over a decade, possibly longer. Granted they're binned chips, and just how capable they are is a gamble, but they're at least consistently sold at less than what they're capable of, and if you want to unlock that additional performance you need to pay a little bit more for the "overclockable" model with the lock removed.

 

[Grench]

It's not like there isn't precedent for this; CPU manufacturers have been selling capable chips intentionally locked at lower frequencies for over a decade, possibly longer. Granted they're binned chips, and just how capable they are is a gamble, but they're at least consistently sold at less than what they're capable of, and if you want to unlock that additional performance you need to pay a little bit more for the "overclockable" model with the lock removed.

Yes - but I still see this as a bit different from CPU binning.

The resources needed to make the 75 kWh battery are extracted, processed and refined, but only 60kWh are used - which is a waste of resources if the upgrade isn't purchased.

The car hauls around the additional 15 kWh of battery weight - that it cannot use without the upgrade. Decreasing it's net efficiency. Assuming linear extrapolation, the 75kWh battery would weigh 25% more than a 60kWh battery would.

Installing a 75kWh battery at the 60kWh price point is clearly profitable - because I doubt that Tesla would sell a car at a direct loss. The physical hardware has, at that point, been paid for.

I suspect that the primary advantage to Tesla for doing this is so that they can advertise a lower price in advertising. "From $xx,xxx and up..."

It still strikes me as very dissengenuous.

 

[levi]

How about the Pyra, where the SE units will have lanes designed and not etched for chips that aren't there?

 

[lukey]

How about the Pyra, where the SE units will have lanes designed and not etched for chips that aren't there?

So these Chips magically appear with the next Software Update or what?

 

[Neelix]

How about the Pyra, where the SE units will have lanes designed and not etched for chips that aren't there?

Key point being that the chips in question aren't there. A better analogue would be if every Pyra had a 4G chip, but the SE units had it locked out in software.

-Neelix

 

[levi]

Yeah, true, it's a bit of a stretch, but I don't have a good example of something that's built one way but configured by BIOS or jumpers to behave to a point, despite the hardware being perfectly capable, despite plenty of oral reports of it happening. It occurred to me that there was still design work and copper laid to fit chips that aren't there, so that's still part of the hardware that's included, even if it isn't connected to anything.

 

[Caine]

It is fairly common practice in machine construction to offer (software) upgrades whenever a specific machine is built in such a way that it exceeds the spec.
I am not too shocked by this. Though the fact that I don't actually own a model S certainly helps with that.

I wonder how the unused capacity will affect battery degradation and performance (due to extra weight).

 

[thatgui]

Doesn't that seem out of character for a supposed new-era technology company?

The opposite - thats were the new-era technology is leading us to.
And as said, nothing new, limiting CPUs or gfx cards is already done for years. Heck, even my old company did this almost 10 years ago for part of their products > originally it was a necessity to do, as an old embedded controller reached his EOL and (utilized for bus communication) needed to be replaced with a far beefier one, but compatibility with the rest of the system needed to be kept. So the new chip would just idle half of the time. But for new facilities where old components were not to be expected, it was sold unlocked as a different "more powerfull" model.

In this paricular case, and don't even see a reason to make a fuss: The whole thing is already "cripplware" as a lot of features in Tesla models just need a "bit switched" somewhere in the system to enable or disable certain functions. And in case of the battery it may not even be a completly bad thing > this way the batteries charge/discharge thresholds are further from the batteries physical imits.