My understanding of what's going suggests that this statement from the article does not properly characterize the situation:
Quote:
|
The situations ... point to a philosophy on Tesla’s part that believes that certain features, like Ludicrous Mode and Autopilot and FSD, are things that would need to be re-purchased every time the car changes hands, at considerable cost.
|
That does not appear to be a reasonable conclusion at all. If that were the case - if that were really what Tesla was trying to do - it would be a widespread, unilateral policy. And at the very least, every last pre-owned vehicle being sold by Tesla themselves would be stripped of these for-charge, software-driven options as part of their resell program. Yet, that's not the case.
This quote reveals what appears to be what is actually going on:
Quote:
|
We have reviewed your situation extensively and while we understand that this misconfiguration may have caused confusion, it would not be fair to those who have paid for Ludicrous Mode to make an exception.
|
The key here is "misconfiguration". So, first off it's important to acknowledge that, due to various circumstances, some Tesla vehicles in service today have features enabled that were not paid for. This can happen if a vehicle was not programmed properly before being delivered to the owner, or perhaps there was a period for which the feature was enabled on a limited free trial basis. Other cases certainly exist too. I recall, for example, that the Short Range Model 3 - the elusive "$35K" model - was originally simply a Medium Range model that was sold at a cheaper price. It has all the hardware and functionality of the Medium Range model, but had not had the omitted features disabled by software. Buyers certainly didn't mind, and it gave Tesla a (shrewd) way to provide buyers with a preview so they might be enticed to upgrade. Later, Tesla issued an update that disabled those features. But what if someone didn't get the update, or it otherwise failed to install properly and failed to remove the functionality? The buyer gets a lucky bonus, that's what. Now, when the vehicle changes hand's Tesla performs an audit, re-flashes the car again, and disabled what should have already been disabled earlier, as disclosed to the original buyer at the time they purchased the car. Unfair? I would say it is definitely not cool, of questionable wisdom, and poor PR. But certainly not stealing. The second buyer needs to be informed of what they are buying, of course, and if they selling party didn't disclose (including if that selling party is Tesla), they should absolutely be held accountable in some way.
If, on the other hand, Tesla adopts a policy to disable features that were explicitly included with the car at the time it was manufactured and sold to the original buyer, hoping to double-dip, that's criminal as far as I'm concerned. However, I don't see that that's what they are doing. And if they have done it, it appears not to be by act of adhering to company policy, but by error or simply by poor judgment on the part of specific employees of the company who should arguably be removed from their particular post.
That's my take.