For example, 2021 Model 3 SR+ vehicles can enable the Cold Weather Feature (heated steering wheel, heated rear seats) for an extra $300. This feature unlock is confirmed to work with the exploit.
So like cucks people were paying for something that their car already had offline, both hardware- and software-wise.
This has apparently being a thing for a long while. I read that in the past some models of BMW came with heated seats but the switch (and maybe a relay I’m guessing) why for unless the premium was paid. It was an early diy upgrade
It’s probably cheaper to build cars that way than to have dozens of different configurations. The small loss they take on the hardware by giving away the hardware but locking it is offset by the increased production efficiency.
Nah, they only need to split production lines when things are radically different. Excluding parts is usually easy, because the production line simply doesn’t install the missing part. The car still moves through the same line at the same rate regardless, so it saves them parts to not install.
The real reason they include them is so they can have their salespeople upsell you at the store. You weren’t originally planning on getting heated seats, but it’s only a few hundred more to do it and you’re already applying for the loan. A few hundred won’t make a huge difference. Also, we have this other feature that’s also only a few hundred more, and this other feature, and… Before you know it, they’ve upsold you into paying $5k more than you intended, simply by activating things that the car already had installed.
I’ve thought for a while that Tesla relies a lot on people who a) have money to throw at a car that’s too expensive, b) have money to throw at features that should be free, and c) do a and b because they think Tesla and Musk are cool.
Not defending this practise but this is nothing new and has been happening for decades on other cars. It’s typically cheaper to manufacture everything on mass, including the higher features, and just not wire it up in lower end cars. Very common for things like heated car seats, I remember one of my old Mitsubishi had everything in the seat but just didn’t have the heated seat control button and fuse.
but that wouldnt stop you from buying the switch and putting it in your own. and mitsubishi wasnt removing your service apointments or cancling your subscriptions when you complained… or modified your car… and i will bet you could order the parts missing direct from mitz as well as having them install them or…gasp a third party garage.
Constant drm checks are what’s different. I in the old days, the company cannot track you as efficiently as today, so you have more freedom to modify you car. Today there is a somewhat live update of what you are doing with your car, and the company has the power and means to punish you accordingly.
Car manufacturers have to setup different manufacturing lines to provide different feature levels. Tesla argue this makes them more expensive. Tesla cars have all features installed, just disabled and the optional extra packages are cheaper compared to their rivals as a result.
To be honest there is a certain logic, if you've ever been in a Ford Focus LX (bottom range) its pretty clear they had to spend quite a bit of money on more basic systems. I honestly thought each LX was sold at a loss
That’s just paying a little more for your car when you buy it, not as a dlc.
Unless you couldn’t afford the fancy features and later could, or move somewhere colder from somewhere warm, but all the pieces are already there and built.
I hate that you are right. How did we manage to fuck up heated seats. It’s literally just supposed to keep our asses warm. This ain’t some complex software intensive thing like navigation
It’s a very old practice. IBM mainframes back in the 1970s/80s would come in various configurations. ‘Upgrading’ the machine to the improved performance spec was achieved by cutting an internal wire
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t think the base cars pay for heated seats. It was more of an early Model 3 thing. I could go into the economics of why, but I doubt that would be a productive conversation
It’s quite uncommon to have line splits for specific features. The only thing in a Tesla that might require a split is dual vs single motor. Heated seats would just be a station skip, where the worker or robot ignores cars without the feature. (Source: I used to write assembly line control software for this exact sort of thing)
It doesn’t save Tesla any money, except in marshaling. If they build a mix of lots of options then they have to track them all. With their simplified option list, cars are more interchangeable.
It also makes upselling possible, even after delivery, which is 98% of why they do it.
Then make heated seats part of the base model. In the 1950s a heater was an optional accessory, but became standard sometime in the 1960s. (I don't know exact years, if someone fact checks me I'm probably wrong, but close enough for discussion) radio went from not an option to am was an option, to FM mono, FM stereo, cassettes, CD, mp3. At one point you could get a record player as well (I think only about 200 were sold in total). AC used to be an option, became standard in the 1990s.
We will keep running this game as manufactures decide to make more and more things standard to make assembly easier.
Which should be illegal. I get not adding a feature, but software unlocks or subscriptions to hardware you paid for is absurd. Also see Tesla batteries.
Tesla includes it at loss because it's cheaper than making you a special version without it, and it opens up new sales by reducing the price (e.g the originally locked batteries let them sell a substantially cheaper car than they could have otherwise)
Subscriptions for that should be banned, but including heated seats and making you pay once to access them is fair game.
Manufacturers dont owe you anything for free.
Edit: also, short of something like FSD which depends on future work from Tesla, I don't think they have a right to prevent you from bypassing a lock and accessing those heated seats if you can
Please find me a post by Elon where he supports people jailbreaking his cars to get features for free that isn't about a white hacker hacking competition to expose bugs.
Actually, yes…when you leave a lot with what you bought, you did, indeed, pay for it.
Their shitty business practices to exploit consumers are designed to favor their decisions as a net gain. And usually, it is a safe bet. An easy win. Hell, even in this case it still will be. Last I checked, they were turning a profit.
When the consumer finds a win, it’s not “getting something for free.”. It’s a small victory for the consumer on a bad business decision by the company. The companies sure use a lot more loopholes than the consumer to squeeze a buck out of everyone. They assumed they would make money giving things away as a deceptive practice. Most times they win. This time, it didn’t work out for them. Oh well. Free market and all. I’ll not be losing any sleep over it tonight.
You left with the hardware, and accepted that it was locked. You didn't pay for access to it.
In my edit which was well before your reply, I explicitly stated I'm okay with you bypassing a lock like that to gain access to heated seats. You have a right to modify your car and tough luck if tesla didn't protect it well enough. That's not your problem, that's theirs.
FSD is another matter though. It's actively developed software that's pushed to the car if you paid for it. Software that will in the future push liability onto Tesla if they are successful. Tesla doesn't have any obligation to provide that software, updates, or access to it regardless of any hack that's done, and I imagine the NHSTA would even require them to devise a way to prevent access due to liability issues that might arise.
Edit: one is accessing something you own but don't have access to through a hole they left open. The other is piracy/theft
The unjust power companies have over their users through their proprietary software is far more worrying for us as a society than some users having unauthorized access to software on a product they own (not “piracy”, that’s a propaganda term from the film industry).
If you pay to add a feature to a product that was previously not available, sure, that makes sense. But in this case, at the point of the transaction, and they hand over the keys, the ownership of the product is now 100% transferred to the customer. They should and can do whatever they want with their property. A manufacturer equipping a feature because it’s cheaper is frankly not the customer’s problem.
Imagine buying a house but you only get access to certain rooms. They set the price, the customer just pays for it. If they want to cover the cost of adding the heated seats feature, then add it to the starting price.
Imagine buying a house but you have not get access to certain rooms.
A bit off topic but that’s kind of how condos work btw. You don’t actually own the apartment or townhouse, you just own shares in a corporation that gives you the right to live in that space, with some severe restrictions.
Often you don’t have the right to mow your own lawn, you can’t keep certain things on your balcony, you can’t have a dog over a certain size, etc. It’s kind of nuts tbh. They give you the illusion of owning the space, but it’s a very restrictive form of ownership.
Well no, a lease is literally a lease. People do lease houses too you know. When people “buy” a condo, that’s not a lease.
The point I’m making here is that the housing analogy doesn’t work (“Imagine buying a house and not being allowed to X”) because people literally “buy” houses and are not allowed to do basic things that you’d assume come with house ownership.
I’m not defending that this is ok. For me buying a condo would be as ridiculous as buying a DRMed Tesla.
Your original reply stated that “including heated seats and making you pay once to access it is fair game” is what prompted my reply. Users shouldn’t be paying for it if it comes with the product, disabled or not.
I have no qualms about subscriptions for FSD due to continuing developments and improvements, and the fact that it requires a service running AI/ML models to operate. However the drastic subscription cost changes over 3 years raises an eyebrow. From $5000 in 2019 to $15000 in 2022 is quite a drastic change. They certainly have the right to price how they want, but definitely an insane pricing model.
If your problem with my statement is that Tesla shouldn't even be allowed to charge them for it in the first place then we'll have to disagree. They can sell whatever product they want with features locked away. If people don't want to buy a SR because it doesn't have heated seats without a fee then don't buy it.
Trying to make heated seats a subscription is where I'd draw the line and say regulators should step in.
And again, no qualms with people jailbreaking heated seats
I see where you’re coming from. And I also agree with the subscription heated seats.
I think we might actually be advocating for the same thing lol. I was making the argument that manufacturers should have a one-time price for things that are packaged along with the product (with the exception of features like FSD that requires a continuing service to operate and evolve), but jailbreaking static features like heated seats is fair game.
However, your post got me thinking… If it is reasonable for FSD to be a subscription model, how are FSD updates different than, let’s say, your phone having updates and security patches? We don’t currently pay for new versions of iOS or Android. Granted the complexity and stake of FSD is greater than a phone, it is similar fundamentally
Would you pay a yearly fee to continue getting updates for your now no longer being updated but perfectly fine otherwise phone? I would.
Good question. At that point I’d explore replacing the OS altogether with GapheneOS or LineageOS.
When it comes to cars though, I don’t find FSD an appealing enough value to continue paying (or even begin to pay in the first place). But to your point, that doesn’t mean Tesla shouldn’t price it how they want and people to buy it if they wish.
The title seems much more interesting than it is. I doubt most people have the ability to perform this type of exploit. It would be more interesting if a group would charge X to unlock it for you.
I hope that becomes more common as these types of features become more prevalent across multiple OEMs. I’d pay a tech-savvy mechanic or a car-savvy hacker quite a bit for features that are already installed but locked behind some arbitrary paywall.
I also just hope regulators put a stop to such behavior first, but I kind of doubt that will happen.
Good. There should be no such thing as unserviced features that are physically present in a product and locked out against its owner. Not in cars or anything.
This isn’t sound - “software” is being used here as a physical description but in reality it’s still just a “face” for actual hardware which often do actually have on going costs
Look, if there’s an actual service feature that continually costs money to provide (eg.: a cell connection for distant remote start, GPS nav map updates, etc), charging a reasonable subscription fee for that is totally acceptable. But charging ongoing fees for fixed features like heated seats is 100% bullshit unless you’re going to include some sort of service benefits like free repairs (which I doubt they’re doing).
Right? Probably for attention grabbing, cause they do say the same flaw exists in zen2 and zen3, and the article is by no means slamming AMD for it. But the title does come off that way
Idk unpatcheable vulnerability for the core component of the system seems pretty negligent but what do I know
Not like they make boat loads of profit and are definitely just cutting corners on aspects of staffing to save extra money up for when the planet inevitably burns down (due to the very same people)
The vulnerability is much more of an issue for Tesla('s profits) than the owners. It’s not a simple exploit and not the worst concern for average users of those chips. You have to have physical access to it in order to exploit it, as well as a system worth hacking (think, national security trying to prevent compromised personnel from physically using the exploit on their systems). I’m not worried about someone breaking into my house to physically hack my computer, just to find some memes and bullshit
It still has to be addressed by both Intel and AMD, because that’s their whole industry. But recalls and such aren’t needed, because bugs can be exploited all over the place and this one isn’t a high level risk for the average end-user. It’s more of a concern for Intel/AMD reputation and the large industry users of their chips
A jailbreak for your car, two decades ago this would have been absurd.
Now, if they really want to go for it, how about the ability to have universally swappable EV batteries for electric cars. It’s funny how they are trying to bring them back to smartphones and ignoring the huge improvement it would be for EVs. All electric cars would have to do is have supports and internal ports to connect the swappable batteries in their trunks, no need to touch the internal EV battery.
Even if it was some shit mileage, like 10-20km, it would seriously revolutionize the roads. Forget trying to find a spot to charge at, it would provide enough business opportunities to just be able to call and have a swappable battery delivered to you and replaced, fast food style. Presumably with batteries that don’t easily catch on fire when mishandled and have additional safety mechanisms, like the rather common and rather high capacity LiFePO4 batteries.
I saw a documentary about Renault doing this in Israel I think. With a network of stations looking like auto wash: it takes your car, opens a door under the car, swaps the battery with a full one and off you go.
Tesla had this exact functionality with their original Model S’ … but like that company it wasn’t profitable (or it was just regular ol Tesla mismanagement) so they also stopped doing it.
It’s not the same thing, because that’s changing the entire EV battery while I’m advocating for an auxiliary port in the back of the trunk to be able to have auxiliary EV batteries that can be all that’s necessary for local travel.
They can recycle 99% of the battery. You can crush it, separate and reuse. It’s actually pretty cool. Don’t know why you’d want to swap batteries that last for over 300,000 miles and soon to probably last longer than the car itself.
Not all EVs use the same pack type and there are advantages and disadvantages to the different types that will continue to change as we progress the technology. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to have universal batteries as it would also limit the designs of the car if it were legislated.
Universal batteries would be bad, but standardized batteries would be great. If a battery has certain dimensions and gives a certain output, and can regulate itself as to charge and discharge, it doesn’t matter what chemistry it uses or internal cells it has. We have had D, C, B, A, AA, AAA, etc., for years and manufacturers got along just fine within those specs. Removable batteries are already a thing with Gogoro scooters in Taiwan and I think at least one car brand in China.
I don’t know if the industry is mature enough for that. There are different voltages, max power outputs and sizes. A set a size and voltage defines nearly everything.
Standard specs are great for something that is replaced frequently (alkaline batteries). It’s less needed for things that are replaced rarely.
Those are cells not packs. A cell based pack uses cells in a module that then are combined to create a pack. Standardizing is not as easy as people make it out to be.
The only problem I have with the current ideas for battery swaps is that they are still very proprietary so would only affect a small set of vehicles. The most universal alternatives I’ve seen have to be hauled as trailers.
I think that rather than one singular battery swap idea, it should be a standard where anyone can make one, just as long as it fits in the trunk and can be secured and connected into a standardized high voltage port in the trunk that wouldn’t have to be that different from the current ones being used. The problem then would be trying to force companies to retrofit older models. Maybe there will be more of an incentive to have something like this when EV batteries begin dying out after 20+ years with cars that are otherwise perfectly fine to drive.
Unlikely, but expect to see more language in sales contracts that “if absolutely any of the software is fucked with in absolutely any way that wasnt done by us the vehicles warranty is absolutely null and void. We also reserve the right to refuse to provide any and all parts and services to any vehicle found to have had its software modified outside of factory parameters.” And you best believe they will keep a list of vins and wont care if it was the previous owner.
Even if it is in the contract, it’s not enforceable (depending on country). In a fair few, the manufacturer has to prove that the modifications caused the defect to invalidate the warranty.
It’s unclear what would happen if they simply refused to service the car, or bricked it instead.
Bricking it would be a legal minefield for them, they wouldnt dare. But making literally anything to do with servicing, updates and repairs such a colossal ball ache that its easier and cheaper to just pay for the heated seats…
I did speak a little broadly, they couldnt deny you the warranty on the wheel bearings or purely mechanical parts but they dont need to prove that the jailbreaking is the cause of literally anything electrical going to shit, they just need to say “That item is controlled by software that has been modified outside of manufacturers specifications, we are refusing to honor the warranty on this item”
Same with servicing “As this vehicle has been modified outside of our recommended parameters we cannot guarantee our repairs and as such we recommend the customer seek an alternative mechanical workshop for servicing and repairs”
Oh sure, you could fight it and win, you might join a class action and get $8 in 3 years time. Or… just dont jailbreak their product and make your life hell. I absolutely disagree with this subscription and paywall bullshit, but I do not underestimate the tomfuckery that big companies will pull to fuck customers.
Add comment